He has no choice.
He HAS to make up lies about Biden that are at least on par with the videos of Trump being exponentially worse, or it's Siberia for him.

His hero is on multiple video recordings lusting after little girls, from his own young daughter to the underage contestants in his beauty pageants that he forces to get naked in front of him to strangers, 10 year olds he says he'll date soon....and not in a joking way.
Then there's his brotherhood with Epstein, getting naked massages by 15 year olds and private parties with only him, Epstein, and dozens of very young unchaperoned girls.
There's also the little issue the 25 credible women who currently accuse him of rape, and the hundreds barred by their NDAs from making accusations....but he knows similar accusations against Biden would never fly, so they're easing in, as you said, to constantly evolving charges. There's one blatantly false accusation by an adult, so he says "fondling little girls ", which he's never been accused of in multiple ways, but Trump has bragged about doing it repeatedly and has multiple accusers. By the election, they'll claim Biden rapes little girls with Epstein too, and has a secret love child named Barron with his daughter.

If he can't convince people Biden is the same kind of kiddy rapist, he knows he's lost a big vote block. Too bad for him he's used up every iota of trust and can't be believed about anything.

Projection doesn't work when the audience knows the truth, @bobknight33...and the entire world knows Trump is a pedophile and Biden is honorable and nothing like Trump the well known proud public pedophile.

Jon Stewart passing the baton to Trevor Noah, that was a great move all around. As we also got Colbert & Bee their well established shows that are great in their own right. But Bee especially might have felt stung by not getting the TDS chair as she's definitely the most deserved among the senior correspondents at the show IMO. But that one extra win-wins for the audience.

is there any audience??

Adding the audience even though it wasn't live (I'm sure most of those people are dead by now) definitely made it feel way less awkward.

The lighting could have been throttled down a bit too. I kept expecting Bill to combust.

It's really interesting to see comedians do these performances without an audience. John Oliver and Steven Colbert's first attempts at this from home were a little cringy because they were still pausing for applause. Bill probably watched his and decided he needed to add in the audience afterward because without it, the practiced pauses from comedians are hard to watch. John and Steven stopped the pauses after a little practice.

I also noticed Bill looking around while talking. During a real performance you expect they are reading the faces of their audience, but in this case he was just looking at the back of his house. It shows you how much of this type of performance is automatic for these guys.

it is an increasing problem that audience is more concerned about bloggin incidents instead of helping.

Dishonest morons go to Cuba looking for problems and find some. Duh.


Every shortage problem they decry is caused by America's embargo. Gas shortages....because America won't let them import it. Old cars....because America won't allow them to import any new ones. Medicine shortages, no fresh food out of season in cities...
because America won't let them to export anything to be able to afford it, or use credit. No international investments...because America won't allow it. No American tourism (meaning by any American company or subsidiaries, or travel that includes America like cruise ships or international air travel), because America won't allow it. No money, because America won't let them export anything or exploit tourism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba

Cuba was doing just fine before we embargoed them into abject poverty for 60+ years. Cuba is doing far better today than they represent.

These are slums and abandoned buildings. Go to Detroit slums, you morons. It's worse, and not because it's communist. Try 5th ward Houston, same thing. Try Florida, plenty of hurricane ravaged ruins there too. American slums don't have communism to dishonestly blame.

Try flying your drone where it's not allowed in America, the cops will be at your door again, and this time you're going to prison, not the embassy, idiots.

And who do they claim is suggesting we convert to communism in America? Probably these morons don't know the difference between communism and socialism and assume their audience doesn't either, or the difference between pure communist socialism and democratic socialism, and don't know America already is a democratic socialist country. Such utter bullshit...it is from turningpoint USA after all.

So sad this is what the right calls informative.

Edit: don't take the above as an endorsement of communism, it's not one. It's a lambasting of dishonest propagandists twisting reality to suit their political narrative.

Almost certainly a mimed / lip synced performance, unfortunately. I really wish programs like this would've done actual live performances as the default, pretty sure audiences could've handled versions that sounded slightly unlike the album recordings.

From the start of the video: iPhone, Android, macbook, pc, kindle, netflix, facebook, instagram...

The video really feels like a over drawn insistence that people recognize that the American economy isn't a pure capitalistic 100% free market environment. That's something that should really be obvious, and not require being said unless your audience are 12 year olds or idiots. It still stands that compared to other giants of the world in China or Russia, it is still America taking the lead on 100% of the innovations that Rob listed, and by comparison, a far more capitalist oriented economy sets America apart. Heck, even include the EU in there as a slightly more socialist economy than America's, and still low and behold it is America that came out with every single example listed...

This move to "pay to stream" is disturbing. Where I live, cable internet is as good as it gets, and it's often not good enough to stream videos above the lowest resolution....and I live in California.
I'm also not in a position to afford a dozen streaming services that each have one show I care about.
I'm not alone in that.

Too bad, this looks good, but I'll never know.

I think they're discarding a large portion of their potential audience this way.

How do you solve something that's going apeshit in another country? For starters, in the case of Ukraine and Crimea, we keep our obligations we agreed to and support them with the U.S. military from day one when Russia invaded Crimea, and again in Ukraine proper. Had we done that as we specifically and unambiguously agreed to do when they gave up their nukes in return, the "civil war" (that's clearly a foreign invasion) wouldn't have occurred. That's an Obama administration failure, one that seriously harmed our international standing and trustworthiness, imo. If we had just put 100 Marines on the borders, Russia wouldn't have risked WW3 to invade either country.
My point is human political or boundary issues are nothing compared to intentionally reengineering the makeup of the atmosphere and getting enough cooperation to implement the desired (required) changes.

If she changes policy in the west, that will impact the East....and South. What America does is more often than not mirrored, especially when we're successful.
Her impact is more for the public than governments. Sway enough of the public, get them to vote on your issue, and politics will evolve at light speed.

Her delivery is exactly what's needed. An angry, educated young woman (they called me young man at 14, so don't balk), being unpleasant about having her future stolen makes exponentially more impact to the audience she targets than a thousand dry, factual, statistic rich talks by scientists. (Those are a dime a dozen today) Kids telling their parents that when the shit hits the fan, the kids are tossing them in the swollen river, not supporting them through their old age, is exactly the kick in the face many need. Kids of today will blame adults of today for the future they live in. Adults of today clearly don't consider that enough.

Something is better than nothing, she's demanding something. She's 16, do you expect her to have all the answers? (Some feasible solutions would be nice) She's well ahead of the curve just understanding the severity of the problem. I'm sure if we listened to all her speeches she gives some suggestions of action we could take to move in the right direction, but I doubt any one person has answers that solve every major effect of climate change, much less all the secondary and tertiary effects. I certainly don't expect her, at that age, to do more than demand those in power take it seriously and find solutions....and act. Chastising a major polluter who walked away from the weak, insufficient Paris agreement is a good start if it works, but I agree it's only barely a start.

You should consider it, she got millions to March for her cause worldwide. Even if she is a willing tool for some adults, it's clear more adults are tools for her. Consider, she isn't talking to kids, she's talking to adults, and some at least are listening to her, not her parents.

Personally it disturbs me that emotional delivery like this is required for many to even consider the issue beyond "what does my political party say on this issue, that's what I say too." I wish scientific issues like climate change were immune to politics, propaganda, and emotion, but they aren't. That's why we're hosed imo, humans are too willing to be deceived if the lie is more pleasant than reality, and denying there's a problem or need for change is quite pleasant to lazy Americans, far easier than facing facts and implementing difficult solutions....until it's not at least, by which time it's far too late.

@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

That is a phenomenal first-hand story and well told.

HOWEVER

I am totally buying what he retold what the Watchowskis were selling him. That sounded awesome. He clearly wasn't the right audience for that kind of talk.

I also like that he says he did us all a favor. Thank you, Will.

Maybe he'll star in the remake the studio is working on (without the Wachowskis). I know no details about that one and can only assume it's going to pale in comparison to the original.

Why does Moscow Mitch think the president is watching? His speech was clearly for an audience of one...Treasonous Trump.