TLDW, so if she answered it in the video forgive me, but....
Are you sure it was $120k per year?
According to the Snopes article.....
Since the organization’s inception in 2013, the Foundation said Cullors received compensation totaling $120,000 for work that included serving as spokesperson and engaging in political education. Since 2019, Cullors’ role with the Foundation has been voluntary and unpaid.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, November 7th, 2013 2:14pm PST - promote requested by ant.

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by ant.

This happened back in 2013. Talk about a nightmare.

Wow. Matlab from 2005 to 2013. Never knew it'd be in the top 10. Lovely programming language, easy to compile and loves big data sets.

My youngest son lives a couple of miles from Bemidji along with my 6th grandchild, a girl. Drove up there about a month ago to see her for the first time in person. She is almost 2 years old. It was great to see her but with the pandemic it was a little heartbreaking because I couldn't hold her or squeeze her little feet.

I've been to Bemidji a few times. I used to do Over The Road Vehicle Testing for a company that is owned by Jack Roush back in 2013. One of the offices is at the Bemidji airport. We would drive the vehicle from Florida to that office for more testing in the cold environment then fly back to Florida after drop off. Sometimes we would have to drive another car back.

I loved that job. Got to see a lot of the country with that one, all expenses paid.

Lemmyface had an amazing run 2013 - the very end of 2017

They poured more concrete in two years than US did in the 20th century. IN TWO YEARS! That's a factual statement. (Shows article and chart showing it took 3 years. Apparently they don't understand that 2011-2013 is 3 years, even when it's in the title.)

Also mentions the new Chinese city with 550 square feet of office space with 95% not occupant. *facepalm

China dipped into our retirement funds to pay tariffs? No, they didn't. That's simply asinine in numerous ways.

They harvest most of the world's frozen fish? No, they freeze most of the world's frozen fish. No one harvests frozen fish.

These people are morons. Typically, they are fast and loose with facts and definitions, maybe just to avoid being truthful, something the right now finds distasteful.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, May 9th, 2013 12:59pm PDT - promote requested by newtboy.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, November 6th, 2013 11:36am PST - promote requested by ant.

Adding video to channels (Wtf) - requested by ant.

*Heavy sigh*
No. They don't say that. The science has evolved in the last 5 years. (Edit: Might check how old and out of date that ipcc report is, btw. Please note you ignore all science done since the 2014 IPCC report you reference that used melting equations and extrapolated rather than measured data sets, data and models they admit are incomplete. They have not updated their sea level estimates since the fifth assessment, which itself raised them approximately 60% over the fourth, which raised them significantly from the third...... Other nonpolitical scientific groups have adjusted the findings to include up to 6.5' or higher rise by 2100 under worst case conditions, the path we're firmly on today.)

Even if you were correct, and I don't agree one bit you are, is just under a 3' rise not bad enough for you in the next 70 years? That's at least 140 million people and all coastal habitats displaced, with more to come. I and others expect worse, but surely that's disaster enough for you, isn't it? The world couldn't deal with one million Syrians, 140 million coastal refugees, and whatever number of non coastal climate refugees fleeing drought or flood sure seems an unavoidable planetary disaster. That doesn't consider the two billion people who rely on Himalayan glaciers for their water, glaciers in rapid retreat.

I guess you dismiss the science from NOAA based simply on it being presented in Forbes without reading it then....so I should just dismiss the IPCC, another non scientific economically focused group discussing science?

Here's some more science then. Edit: Seems most CURRENT projections using up to date data are more in line with my expectations than yours.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-metre-sea-plausible.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48337629

https://time.com/5592583/sea-levels-rise-higher-study/

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5056

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Note the updated chart near the top showing more current projections compared to ipcc predictions.

*my content?*

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, January 27th, 2013 6:05am PST - promote requested by lucky760.

Not surprising, Cockys are very smart birds.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, January 27th, 2013 7:55am PST - promote requested by ulysses1904.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, August 23rd, 2013 4:44pm PDT - promote requested by lurgee.

This was a good article about the physics of the "Bubba scrub'. It's also just a fun read.
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2013/03/article/backmarker-breaking-down-the-bubba-scrub/