I sure hope he gets stiffed by anyone who doesn't support Trump now....and is refused service at his local stores...not as a political thing, as a business decision, because Trump is well known for not paying his bills and screwing those that do business with him, so it's reasonable to assume that his supporters will do the same. Same for his family, they support a Trump supporter.
I wish this had been in Alaska...as I understand it, there he could be prosecuted for not helping and serve jail time.
What a douche.

You would be correct, but that's not what happened.
Yes, many independents didn't register as Democrats by October, but many more were removed from the rolls or had their party affiliation changed without their knowledge...and many 'new' voters were sent official notices that the primary is in November! THOSE are what people are outraged about, that people didn't register in time, that's just disappointing and a terrible system.
That many didn't vote, that is conspiracy not lazyness, because so many didn't vote because their polling places didn't open until noon, or closed all together.
It's the DNC and Clinton's fault if she and the DNC collude to secretly remove thousands of NEWLY REGISTERED DEMOCRATS from voting rolls, or change their party affiliation so they can't vote in the primary, close polling places in 'Sanders strongholds' like Brooklyn, and cut the hours that others are open by 1/2....which is what happened.
It is clearly and definitely a conspiracy....just POSSIBLY not one Clinton is personally responsible for (although that's incredibly unlikely). It is POSSIBLE that the DNC is doing all this underhanded voter suppression themselves in order to ...I just can't figure it out...to throw the election for Trump? That's what is likely if they continue this shoving Clinton down our throats...she won't be getting independents votes and they know it. I can't fathom why they want to lose the election so badly.
What's been reported, the DNC putting a Clinton campaign worker in charge of the 'voter suppression investigation', is also TERRIBLE and smacks of conspiracy. OF COURSE they aren't going to find any issues, since all inconsistencies have benefited Clinton.
In open primaries (the only ones that come close to mirroring an actual election), Bernie does quite well. He's also probably going to take California by a landslide, which is a good reason they haven't reported a single poll from here. If he wins there (here) like he did in Alaska, he wins, unless the 'super delegates' steal the election for her...which is a likelyhood.

EDIT: I suppose you don't think THIS is an underhanded conspiracy either?
http://videosift.com/video/Hillary-8482-s-Paid-Trolls-Take-Down-Bernie-Facebook-Pages

I've spent years in Alaska

Lol all I do when looking at this is think how much I f'ing love Salmon. My father-in-law used to go up north (in NY) and salmon fish for 3-4 days and bring back - on his luckier trips - half a dozen 20-40 pound fish. We'd eat them all winter. God I loved it.

Sucks today because fresh salmon is almost non-existent here in NY these days. Glad to see them coming back in Alaska.

I will never understand people in the tropics, flying close around a lava flow, bundled up like it's Alaska in January...

I wonder what was wrong with that bear. It was obviously having trouble before they got there to be 'sleeping' out in the open like that. That's not normal bear behavior.
I wonder if they (the state/rangers) did an autopsy.
I've never seen anything like that in nature.
This makes me really sad, and a bit worried that we might start hearing about BCD (Bear Collapse Disorder-related to CCD in bees). I know up here in N California, we have a serious issue with very low water in our rivers causing warm water, which allows toxic algae to bloom, devastating our salmon (and other river fish) population. I have no idea if that's happening in Alaska too.
I wonder if this is related, either from eating tainted fish or drinking the water. It can kill healthy, well fed dogs within minutes of drinking it, so I'm curious what it's doing to the struggling wildlife that has no other source of water. I've not heard or seen any studies on that.
That's likely just one more part of the disaster that is the California drought. Fingers crossed we get some good rain this winter, if not things here are going to get a bit Thunderdome-y.

There is a bunch of controversy up here in Alaska right now because it's now legal to bait grizzly bears to stations and then shoot them. It might be fun to set up bait stations with pools instead, like a bear spa kind of idea.

They forgot these:

- Cabin service so frosty it makes a Moscow winter look like fucking Maui. (See: Icelandair)

- Fist-swinging free-for-all trying to grab aisle seats near the front of the plane (See: Southwest).

- The prepaid-for seat shuffle where the seat you reserved three months ago gets taken from you and you're reassigned somewhere near the head at the back of the plane. (See: Alaska Airlines)

- "Aww, Sweetie, did you want a sandwich on this 7-hour trans-Atlantic flight? THAT'LL BE 30 FUCKING EUROS PLEASE. Oh, you want to pay in dollars? Ok, that'll be 45 bucks at the current exchange rate plus conversion and transaction fees. Here, enjoy this three-day-old reindeer meat sammich that's dryer than the twats of the frigid cabin crew who served it to you." (See: Icelandair (again))

- Ladies and Gentlemen, we apologize for the 6g maneuver our former Air Force pilot is about to pull in order to avoid having to do a go-around because we were too busy discussing the new stewardess' tits to watch the glide path. Please keep the screaming in terror to a minimum as he startles easily . . ." (See: Delta)

- "Ladies and Gentlemen, we've now arrived in Scranton . . . oh, fuck, this isn't Pittsburgh!" (See: Delta (multiple times))

Yeah -- I just LOVE flying.

While I find it entertaining and hilarious, this is simply horrible strawmanning. The US has one of the simplest systems of inclusion of any major nation. He either is not understanding, or he's simply being a demagogue about it.

It's really, really simple.

Want full rights? Then join permanently. Become a state. It's literally the exact same thing that Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii did.

Guam, the Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have the EXACT SAME OPTIONS as those states listed above had when those states were territories.

Samoa is different because they don't meet the minimum population requirement (60K) to be bumped up to qualify for statehood.

They're pretty close tho.

But yeah... it has nothing to do with race or bigotry or anything like that. If John Oliver can't understand that simple system, then how does he explain the different rights of citizens in the British Overseas Territories vs the British Crown Dependencies, or how Wales and Scotland are sort of countries and sort of not countries.

I'm assuming he can understand the wonky UK system, and if that's so, he should easily understand the simple US system (want full rights, vote to join permanently).

Just last year, there was a movement in Guam to call for a vote of statehood. Basically a glorified (but meaningful) petition. They didn't get the required % of people wanting to vote, so, in essence, Guam doesn't even care enough to vote for statehood.

They have every right that every other territory has had in terms of what category they fall under.

Basically, just look at states as permanent (and thusly more rights as well as more responsibilities) and territories as temporary until they decide what they want to be. Or territories can stay in limbo forever.

Guam, PR, and the rest can go the route of Hawaii (okay, that was naked imperialism but whatever) or the route of Cuba and the Philippines... or just stay how they are.

Alaska is hanging in there : )

I wonder if you rhinolined them and buried them under 4 feet of soil if they could make a warm house here in Alaska.

We usually have a few feet of snow at least, and have had to call plowers to get our driveway plowed a few times. We usually have below zero weather on many occasions (none so far?) Alaska will become the new Seattle maybe.

Is Alaska especially devoid of snow this year? http://videosift.com/video/North-to-Alaska-for-a-White-less-Christmas

I'm jealous.... Ever since moving to Alaska I like to keep a copy of Tennisons IMPROMPTU SHARK SURGERY in my glove box just in case....

We, meaning people, but yes, I did really mean America, the most prolific space fairing nation in the past. The Chinese may go there again soon, but not yet. I'll reserve my opinion about their ability until I see their manned rocket land there and return.

Florida is thousands of times the size of Kiribati and probably tens of thousands of times the population...and is FAR from the only place in jeopardy. I was not ignoring Kiribati, or the dozens of other island nations, or Venice, or Alaska, or, well, any place with a coast line, I was giving one example. It's a little funny that you decided to say 'Florida?!? It's far worse over in Kiribati' while you're trying also to say 'Don't panic, it's not bad'. WHAT?!? I think the people of Kiribati would disagree that it's not time to panic! ;-)

That's not the data I've seen. What I've read (from numerous sources) said the rate of rise is accelerating, not a steady rate over the last 100+ years, and it is expected to continue accelerating. When you say they can "cope" with it, what do you mean, because even the little amount of rise we've seen so far has already displaced tens of thousands of people, and very few have just adapted to the new situation? What evidence have you that there's a solution to the loss of useable land?
Oh, from your volcano example, I see that by "cope" you mean "die". That's not how I intend to "cope", thanks. ;-)
Kiribati has seen tsunamis, and survived them. Being in open ocean, most are barely perceptible. There's no continental shelf to make them 'grow'. That said, 1 foot of sea rise puts a large portion of the island underwater and makes the rest FAR more susceptible to damage from even a small tsunami.

Really? That's not what I've been reading for decades. California alone, which produces over 1/4 of America's food, is in the worst drought ever recorded due to climate change, and production is falling like a stone there. They are not alone by any means. Africa, Australia, etc have the same issues. It's not mainly an issue of violence world wide, it's an issue of lack of water. The violence is often CAUSED by the lack of food, making the 'men with guns' have a reason to steal and control food sources. If food were plentiful, it would be impossible for them to do so. Africa did have the means to grow their own food, before they stopped getting enough water. That's the biggest road block, the seed can be donated and fertilizer only increases yields, it's not needed in most cases to sustain crops.
Because some war torn countries have issues with roving gangs of gun toting thugs does not make gun toting thugs the reason Africa is food poor. The thugs SELL that food, so it doesn't just disappear, it still gets eaten, and there's still a huge famine, so.....

Yes, adopting new tech, even quick adoption, absolutely CAN be an economic boon, just not for the oil companies in this instance. Just consider the adoption of the automobile, it was fast, and great for the economy in numerous ways.

EDIT:And I have said clearly that I don't think anything done today will effect 2100. The greenhouse gasses stay in the atmosphere that long or longer, so today's change in emissions will only equate to a change in the climate after 2115, so we can't avoid 1 foot of sea level rise. We can, however, stop increasing the rate of change (the system reacts to greenhouse gas addition right away, but takes 100+ years to react to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, so we can make it worse, but not better than that prediction...and that's the road we're on, making it worse daily).

Yes, changing the resolution changed the measurements ON THAT ONE OUTLYING GLACIER ONLY. It explained why it alone wasn't following the models, which was because a large portion of it was incredibly high up, making it colder, but on average it was below the 'melt line', skewing the data.
78% less glacier (your figures) still mean more than 78% less runoff, so >78% less water....in areas that are already completely dependent on glacial water to support humans and already have water supply issues today. Even the low 65% number is disastrous.
The glaciers do not need to be gone in order to be useless as sources of fresh water. I did not say all glaciers would be 'gone' I said they would no longer supply the demand, and there's no known tech in the pipeline that can.
So, in short, please stop twisting and exaggerating what I write to create strawman arguments to shoot down. It gets old fast.