I think it is stupid to whine about the email leaks "unfairly" damaging Hillary's campaign.

The DNC could have easily avoided the fallout / resignations / etc. by simply not doing shady, underhanded shit. When you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, don't bitch about who snitched on you -- a better response would be to learn that you can't get caught if you don't do anything wrong.


Sorta reminds me of earlier in the campaign when Hillary complained that it was unfair for people to want to see her transcripts of paid speeches given to Wall Street banks. She said that other candidates weren't expected to do that, so it was an unfair double standard. Bernie Sanders response was great -- he said he'd be 100% willing to hand over any of his transcripts, except for one minor problem: he never made any paid speeches to Wall Street banks.


With regards to Wikileaks, I have zero problems with how they handled things and don't care at all who their source was -- Russia, some other very biased source with a clear agenda to damage Hillary, whatever. The only thing that matters is, are the emails true / legit? I haven't heard anyone suggest that they aren't; just bitching about it being "unfair" that all the dirt is on Hillary and the DNC.

Wikileaks relies on sources. You know, leakers. I'm confident that if they had dirt on Trump or any other candidate, they'd put it out there. But Wikileaks can't make candidates or parties do questionable shit, and even when candidates or parties do do questionable shit, they still need someone to catch them and then leak the information to Wikileaks.

Sometimes, if they don't have any dirt on somebody, it might be because there isn't any dirt to be had... Just like Sanders' transcripts of Wall Street speeches.

I found it! Here's a copy of the transcript:

https://imgur.com/a/skffp

Edit: Lol, the transcription is right in the description. I guess I read the comments before the description.

I doubt there is one. Sorry thought you were interested in the transcript. My bad.

The transcript at least.
http://time.com/4383516/jesse-williams-bet-speech-transcript/

@newtboy

If you are only growing twice what you can eat yourself, you are describing a large garden, not a farm.

More over, what you class as 'industrial' farming is in fact the entirety of all grain farming. If there is a place in farming for wheat, corn, soy, canola and so on, 99% of it is done on what you class 'industrial' farming.

Your typical family farm is over a thousand acres today. If I go out and start naming the family farms of just friends and family I know, I can come up with 30-40+. They all farm over a thousand acres, they use tractors and combines and they make a fair bit more food than twice what they can eat. They aren't the ultra rich land barons that your 'industrial' moniker would imply either, at most they have a singular hired hand to help out with the work. The ones with children interested in taking over often don't need to hire anyone at all.

If you want to abandon that agricultural production and the methods used you mean raising the cost of production more than 100 times over. I can't even fathom the cost of weeding a thousand acres of wheat by hand, let alone removing grasshoppers from a corn crop that way. I'm sorry, but what works for your garden doesn't scale to grain crops.

Oh, and the conflation of herbicide and pesticide was done by the fear monger crowd. Listing round-up as a chemical that only kills plants and not insects and animals didn't fit their agenda so now everything is supposed to be called a pesticide across the board. Maybe that's just a Canadian thing, but the bottom line is that if you had a crop completely over run with insects you could spray it once a day with stupidly high concentrations of round-up and the water in the sprayer would do about the same damage to the insects as would the round up.


As for the video's other claims, I stand by my characterisation. You can't honestly tell me the video is trying to put forward on open and honest picture of Monsanto's actions and history. For example, the Manhattan Project, here's a transcription for clarity:
"Monsanto head Charles Allen Thomas was called to the pentagon not only asked to join the Manhattan project, but to lead it as it's co-director. Thomas put Monsanto's central research department hard to work building the atomic bomb.Fully aware of the implications of the task the budding empire sealed it's relationship with the inner cicrcles of washington with two fateful days in Japan.
"
- queue clip of nuclear blasts-

I think I stand by my summation.

Yes.
It's as if he doesn't understand that it takes less than one minute to ruin someone's life. Would he grant the victim 20 minutes with his unconscious son...wife....daughter to do as she pleased with impunity? She could rape torture and murder them all in 1/4 that time, but because it only took 20 minutes that would mean it's OK? The "20 minutes of action" defense was just insane, much more insane that it WORKED!

What I saw said there are minimum sentencing guidelines for the crimes he's been found guilty of that should have him in prison for 6+ years....how can the judge ignore those guidelines legally and give him 6 months in county jail, which means he'll actually serve 2 months or less and NEVER see prison. That seems like something he can't legally do, and something that hopefully will have him removed from the bench, because he clearly doesn't belong there.

@bareboards2, can you post the transcript in the description or as a comment please? I heard all I could of her eloquent and horribly depressing victim statement, but it was definitely worth reading for those who have not.

Congratulations! Your comment on Hillary's Goldman Sachs Transcripts Answer has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 13 Badge!

There was an interview on ABC that I was watching at work, and the lady being interviewed made more or less the same points as this article from the Grauniad, Dilma Rousseff: Brazilian congress votes to impeach president http://gu.com/p/4tdg9/stw

She said that many of the minor parties spent a lot of time explaining their votes, and that many of them had nothing to do with either corruption or Rousseff... so many Brazilians think it's all politicised and partisan and little to do with any real wrongdoing.

It'll possibly show up here in a day or so - http://www.abc.net.au/transcripts/ (I think it was probably ABC News, Series 2016 | Episode 77). I kinda wish I'd paid more attention to the who/what/when/where/why/how.

The end of this BBC News report highlights something that Greenwald said, which is that the supporters of impeachment are rich and white, and those who oppose it are poor and likely to be mixed race (skip to 1:37):



p.s. This isn't the transcript I was talking about, but yesterday is missing from the list (?!?) It does have some details I haven't seen much elsewhere: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4445246.htm

Congratulations! Your comment on Hillary's Goldman Sachs Transcripts Answer has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

2:57 of dodging and redirecting to avoid any chance of confirming a release of transcripts.

She wonders why people think she is untrustworthy....she doesn't have anything to hide, right?

Your video, Hillary's Goldman Sachs Transcripts Answer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I expect the same answer about raising the minimum wage if she's elected...
"I'll push to raise it when everybody does it." Or when it's time to fight for health care "I'll do it when everybody does it".

Those are not the words of a LEADER, Hillary, those are the words of a FOLLOWER. If you're waiting for your opponents to do the right thing before you do, you are much WORSE than they are, not somehow better.

There's clearly something to hide, or she would not be taking the huge hits in the polls over this issue, she would just release the transcripts, but that would end her campaign so she has to make up excuses and use the Republican's behavior as her standard.

I liked Bernie's reply....'I've released every transcript of every paid speech I've ever given to wall street bankers...it was easy....there's never been one.'

OH SNAP! Bernie called her bluff and released the transcripts of his 'paid' speeches. Somehow I really doubt she'll follow through and release hers now, because they would end her campaign if people see and hear her selling her influence to bankers. (sorry about the 'reporter', not much choice, no one else seems to be reporting this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li7padrRQmA

#feelthebernofthefingersinthebootyassbitch!

Transcript.