God, sounds like that crap where the game is impossible to win unless you throw money at it. Glorified gambling.

I get it, I really do. As a centrist, I hate the way the world is going. Bernie should have won and it feels like a bright future has been tossed in the shitheap for an uncertain one on the gamble that something will change.

We aren't the first to live in such times and won't be the last. Unfortunately.

Assuming he wasn't just pulling that ten billion dollar gamble number out of his ass then that would be a bargain. The United States has spent upwards of 4 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ten bil is chump change compared to that.

Her's the problem that so many people have failed to consider. Why did Clinton lose? That is an answer that can't be so easily answered as one would think. Up to this point, the news medias all said the exact same things and focused only on the negatives for Trump and all the positives for Hillary even though one can easily argue how both of them were bad choices.

Trump said alot of terrible things, no denying that. But the thing however, is that Hillary Clinton isn't the most honest person either. It is because of how secretive she was and how it all felt as though this was all being "gift wrapped" for her that got people who voted for Trump.

The Racists, The Bigots, The Sexists and all other nutjobs that we have seen on the news medias and social medias are not the majority that voted in Trump. They are a percentage, but not the majority. To say that is the case would bring to question of how Obama won so easily in states that Trump took just as easily.

If you are struggling to tell your kids anything... Tell them this: Be honest and Trustworthy. Someone that others can rely on. Tell them that when they grow up, they will become better people than Trump and all other politicians in Washington D.C. and raise them as such.

This is why I struggle between watching this video. The things Trump has said should not be emulated in anyway, but the reason why Trump won was far away from the idea of how "Grabbing pussy" "building a wall" "Insulting races and the mentally ill" and all other nonsense we had to put up with this year being key factors of why Trump won.

Trump won because the people lost their confidence in those in DC right now and decided to gamble on Trump to make America Greater than it already is. Screw "Make America Great again!" this is about making our country even better and even greater than we stand now, and people believe that if there is a person who can do it, it is Donald Trump.

Just remember: Repubicans hate the guy as much as anyone else, and they will not hesitate to impeach the man the moment he f***s up.

Thing about jizm tsunamis is that the people at the bottom get the worst of it.

Also, "nothing" is a hyperbole. They most certainly have more to lose, and they'll feel every loss that much more keenly than the better off.

I think there is more to this than just the disillusioned working class sticking two fingers up to the EU elite and taking a gamble on prosperity - frankly I think that is an ugly characterization - it suggests a rash and vindictive people when really I think (or hope?) the bulk had the best intentions for themselves and this country. Desperate for change perhaps, but I don't think they saw it as a gamble.

As for blame...hmm. Can't say I'm particularly sad to see Cameron go, but you do get a feeling of "better the devil you know" when you see the other contenders. This referendum would have been up for play at the next election regardless too. Boris and Gove were the greater opportunists by far. You want rash and reckless? Look no further - Power at any cost. I think the greatest blame is with the media. Not just the tabloids either, even the BBC gave disproportionate coverage to Farage - its the classic chicken-egg thing of them simultaneously wanting to cover what is popular whilst also having massive influence over what is popular.

Anyway, I do think he is dead right about engaging with the leave crowd. What would Jo Cox do, innit. We must answer the bigotry and xenophobia not in kind, but with kindness and compassion.

Doing everything he can do to defeat Trump would mean continuing to fight to be the nominee, because a Clinton VS Trump election is a toss up, not a way to defeat him. Only a Sanders nomination blocks a Trump presidency, a Clinton nomination gives us a 50/50 chance of a Trump presidency at best.....and people are OK with that?!? WTF people? What's wrong with you?

If you don't want Trump, you should continue to support a Sanders nomination at the convention.
If you support Clinton, you are gambling with the nation for your personal preference, and clearly "beating Trump" is NOT your major concern, if it's a concern at all.

As he said, it's about convincing voters that Clinton is WITH THEM, not convincing voters to be with her. She has failed completely at that task, and seems to not have even tried. In fact, her campaign made more efforts to court anti-Trump republicans than is has to court independent Sanders supporters. That, as much as anything, is an indication that she plans on moving far to the right if she's elected, not that she plans to work towards the few goals she's temporarily adopted from the Sanders camp.
If Sanders supporters don't think Clinton is going to work towards their goals, and she's given little to no indication that she will, they won't vote for her. It's up to HER to convince them she's on their side. Get to it, woman, or bow out.

This is possibly the singly most cool thing Oliver has ever done.

I hope someone with a lot more money than sense -for example those online gambling places that buy stupid shit on eBay for ridiculous sums just for advertising- starts buying this debt up and forgiving it.

Yes, but the thing is, it's not "over in all but name" at all. As you said (and I didn't check your math) he would only need 53% of California to be ahead....that's not much, and is totally within the range possibility.
Sadly, I also don't think it will happen, but I'm no where near ready to give up hope when there's still such a realistic possibility of having a president I could be proud of that would at least be trying to fix the process.
I see a Clinton nomination as a GIANT gamble with direction of the country for maybe decades to come, one where the odds are against them, and I can't fathom what the DNC is thinking being so risky when they have a 'safe' choice. It's just insane to me.

If you're actually sick do you still take the day off work?

My next door neighbour gets paid to play/test gambling machines.

I was thinking much the same thing. I think he's hamming it up a bit to suit the show, but that was some pretty deep honest introspection there, along with an almighty well of angst.

I'm starting to get why people vote for Trump. To throw a radical in to the equation, for better or worse. It's a gamble, and it's likely going to turn out bad if he wins the presidency, but it's not like the establishment is going to magically reform itself...

And though it's his show and he's trying to run it, I though Colbert was actually ruining it a little bit. It became apparently pretty early in that Bill was talking from the heart for a change (rather than shooting from the hip), it might be worthwhile listening.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/16/merkel-gambling-away-germanys-reputation-over-greece-says-habermas

Short version: Fuchs is a hardliner in many regards. Like you say, his perspective on this matter stands seperate from the rest of the world (except this one particular country in central Europe), which is why I used to not pay too much attention to folks like him. Bad idea. As it turns out, lots of people support his view, many more than I ever thought possible, depressing as that may be.

The entire thing is a break with 70 years of post-war diplomacy, trying to become a part of Europe again. Adenauer (Brandt) received better treatment in Moscow (Warsaw) than Tsipras did in Brussels/Berlin. From a European Germany straight back to a German Europe in no time at all...

Edit: Habermas offers his take on this matter.

Perhaps in some minor 'unknown' areas for unknown reasons that could be true, but overall it's far from true. The rotting material creates exponentially more methane than any mechanism could trap. You and they don't even mention the mechanism that traps methane at all, the methane being released is from bacteria eating thawed organic material.

EDIT: Actually, your study quote did not say that "they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets"...it said "numerical simulations predict" they exist, "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear." This means places where methane capture outpaces release, or happens at all, have not been found-'location unclear'.

OK, you did say 'if we magically remove all the CO2 we've ever produced' (ignoring methane and other greenhouse gasses) in your second post. I missed the 'magic removal' part. My mistake, but that makes it a silly argument since we can't do magic. If we could, there would be no problem....and if I crapped diamonds I would be rich.

Well, in the context of talking to a person from 1912, if you explained to them that the 'progress' (by which I guess you mean population explosion and technical advancements) of the last century comes at the cost of the environment, nature, and may destroy the planet over the next century (at least for human survival), I would bet anyone with an IQ of 90+ will say 'selling (or even gambling) our permanent future for temporary industrial progress is a terrible idea, no thanks'.

Well, you must see that some of that great 'food production' is actually corn and grain for livestock, bio fuels, palm oils, etc., not human food stuffs. In order to make that 'food', forests are destroyed, removing entire eco systems that provided 'bush taco' (natural foods) which wasn't included in the equations about overall food production. Food HARVESTS of natural foods have declined rapidly worldwide, just look at the ocean. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years at current acidification rates. Kill the base of the food web, and the web falls apart. It's a rare place today that can support a human population without industrial agriculture and food importation, both of which have failed to solve starvation issues to date.

You can only be ignoring that data about it being catastrophic. I referenced it earlier. Just to mention ONE way, by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage. In most cases, there's absolutely no way to fix this. For instance, Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade, and that rate is expected to continue to accelerate. With no water, industrial agriculture fails instantly, and people die in 3 days or so. There's NO solution for this disaster, not a plan, not an idea, nothing. There are already immigration problems worldwide, how to solve that when the immigration increases exponentially everywhere?

The downvote was not for your opinion, it was for your dangerously mistaken estimations and conclusions, and insistence that, contrary to all human history and all scientific evidence, this time humans will find and implement a working solution to the problem in time (already too late IMO) that's not worse than the problem was, and so we should not be bothered by the coming massive shortages and upheaval that comes with them, because somehow in that upheaval we'll find and implement massive global solutions to currently insurmountable issues. We can't even slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, it's unbelievable to think we'll turn that to a negative number in 20-30 years even if the tech is invented (which still leaves us in Mad Max times at best, IMO), much more so to think we could erase 100 years of emissions in that time. EDIT:...and I find that kind of dangerous unrealistic suggestion insulting.

Duh, I never bother to play these gambling games. It is not worth my time, money, and energy.