Clinton has been a champion of Monsanto publicly and privately.

Whether one believes GMOs are dangerous, or safe and wonderful ,or the jury is out, there is one undeniable fact.

Monsanto is a huge a monopolistic empire with very few core moral values, other than to take over the entire food system, control the market and force producers and consumers into their corporate straight jacket.

I happen to believe no one corporation should be allow to use its power to screw over farmers, contaminate he ecosystem with bastardized lifeforms with unknown results, use its immense legal clout to beat up on dissenting small farmers, stifle honest research, make it impossible to label the content of foods.....and God only knows what else they are up to.

They epitomize what is wrong with a society that has allowed these immense monopolistic corporations to get far too big and unrestrained and allowed to do the equivalent in every aspect of life.

And the last thing we need in the White House is another enabler of this anti-social behavior.

No sarcasm. I mean it.

Could you debunk this rumor too, por favor? I'm so hoping you can. I mean that, too. No sarcasm.

Video: Hilary Clinton endorses GMOs, solution-focused crop biotechnology

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/03/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology/

some guy named Jerry Crawford?

But the narrative that Clinton worked at Monsanto is demonstratively false.

I expect nothing less that a goal post move, have at it.

i just wanted both goal posts, instead of only one.

As in the whole truth, a level playing field.

She did work for the Rose Law Firm, which represented Monsanto. Whether or not she herself worked on any Monsanto cases is probably anybody's guess.

However, what is indisputable is that she is a big supporter of GMOs.

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/08/27/opinion/contributors/when-it-comes-to-gmos-which-side-is-hillary-clinton-on/

Next?

The article has three reasons why GMO's are not what they claim:

There are three glaring problems with Clinton’s promotion of GE drought-resistant crops. First, drought-resistant seeds and crops are still in the experimental stage and make up a miniscule portion of GMO crops on the market. More than 95 percent of GE crops are corn, soy, alfalfa, canola and sugar beets, used in animal feed and in processed food products, such as high-fructose corn syrup. These crops are engineered to produce their own Bt toxins in every cell or else to withstand massive doses of herbicides, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, which are sold to farmers as companions to their GMO seeds.

Second, attempts to engineer seeds to thrive during droughts largely have failed. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Monsanto’s DroughtGard, the only drought-resistant crop approved by the USDA so far, produces “only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions.”

Third, according to experts at global organizations, such as the Food & Agriculture Organization, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty, a transition to sustainable, regenerative agriculture — not genetic engineering — is not only the most practical way to feed the world but is absolutely essential if we want to slow and eventually reverse global warming.

---

GMO's may be safe to eat but they are terrible for our planet.

However, they are profitable, so who cares about the planet?

What a gem she must be. Lol. The disgusting thing for me is that she is currently taking money from private prison companies. In my opinion anyone doing that should be tarred and feathered and thrown out with yesterday's trash. I know people who have had their lives ruined because of this industry which is nothing more than a cartel.

Most lobbying firms have lots of clients. That doesn't mean the clients are connected with each other, anymore than if you hired a lawyer to prepare a will that would mean you were connected to his other clients.

She has been a staunch supporter of the failed and unpopular Drug War. She also went along with it being rebranded as the War On Terror allowing police, federal law enforcement and the NSA to spy on effort aspect of our lives in order to try and incarcerate more of us. Nothing saddens me more.

This is Monsanto's legacy in Argentina
http://overgrowthesystem.com/argentina-the-country-that-monsanto-poisoned-photo-essay/

Science and all that.

Corporate dems are treated like heroes.

We align ourselves with the majority of Americans who believe this is the best country on the planet.

If so, steal this thread.

Back in the day Tom Hayden maybe.

Or EF Schumacher , if you really want to get esoteric.

Or today Naomi Klein.

She has no connections to Monasanto!!

She's a public servant, and has been forever except when she wasn't and that's when she made her hundreds of millions of dollars using her public service connections.

But Bernie is worth less than a million and he's been in public service the whole time. He should have taken a break like Hill did, and turned his public service connections into millions.

The choice is clear: A Real Deal public servant, or one not a real deal.

A Bernie supporter suggests.

Then maybe it wouldn't be so toxic in here?

*Note to jury, since I'm on someone's list lately. This is not an accusation that RobertEarl is doing this, I'm just pointing out why a post like this is needed.

I'm sure they're making the payoffs out of the goodness of their shriveled little hearts.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-17/lobbyists-for-monsanto-exxon-mobile-raise-money-for-hillary-clinton

When Barack Obama was running for the presidency in 2008—and later for reelection in 2012—he promised he wouldn't take money from registered lobbyists, not even as bundlers. In the race to succeed him, Hillary Clinton is not following in his footsteps.

The former secretary of state raised more than $2 million from 40 "bundlers"—fundraisers who get their contacts to give to campaigns—who were also lobbyists, according to financial forms released Wednesday by the Federal Election Commission. In all, the Clinton campaign raised $46.7 million between the beginning of April and the end of June.

Bundlers, who are often wealthy or well-connected individuals, do more than donate to campaigns. They put their social networks to work for favorite candidates, persuading (often equally wealthy and well-connected) family members, friends, colleagues, and other contacts to donate as well, effectively bringing in far more money than they could under the current legal donation limits. Individuals can contribute $2,700 to candidate committees (as opposed to super PACS) for the primary election and the same amount for the general election, for a total of $5,400 in a campaign cycle. Campaigns don't have to disclose their bundlers—unless those bundlers are also lobbyists.

Clinton's bundlers include some familiar names: Jerry Crawford, an outside lobbyist to Monsanto and Iowa kingmaker, put together another $35,000 or so. Tony Podesta, a mega-lobbyist who co-founded the Podesta Group and is the brother of Clinton's campaign chair John, bundled almost $75,000.

This happened:

Isn't this the same Hillary who decried the corrosive influence of money in politics? Or, did she evolve again?

And it states that people with contacts work to raise money from individuals for a candidate, within the allowed amount.

In fact it sort of sounds like what Omaha Steve does with Act Blue... He used his contacts, sets fundraising goals, and then updates his contacts on how they are doing with posts about Act Blue progress. Hmmm... Odd.

I guess Omaha Steve is a bundler, and apparently a good one at that http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=9963

*Note to jury, not a callout Steve actually has done a great job of getting people to participate and donate to the campaign. And it's even pretty cool that the cmapaign wrote that letter, it's nice to get that recognition!

Keep up the good work sir!

every instance--did they think that "506th time is the charm"?

When you're finished congratulating yourselves, could you please explain this?

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/03/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology/


Money quote: “Genetically modified sounds ‘Frankensteinish’ – drought resistant sounds really like something you want,” she said.

They all do. It is an effective way to raise money.

One of Clinton's closes political advisers in 2008, who headed a PR firm that represented Monsanto, among other huge corporate clients.

Ckinton is suposed to be an ally of progressive policies witth friends like this?

https://corporatewatch.org/?q=node/392

Burson-Marsteller (B-M) is one of the largest public relations (PR) agencies in the world and also the most reviled due to its mercenary attitude in choosing clients and contracts, and its frequent run ins with activists for environmental and other progressive causes. When helping its industry clients to escape environmental legislation or sprucing up the image of some of the most repressive governments on Earth, B-M brings to bear state of the art techniques in manipulating the mass media, legislators and public opinion.

If DU had an Elijah Cummings award for having Hillary's back, you would get my vote.

I'll take the kick too.

Answer me this...the real question...will she be supporting Monsanto's agenda?

They can't answer your question. They can't hear you.

That's all the majority of Americans would ask of a president.

She does what's good for herself only which is obeying whatever Bush Sr and his wife says. If she cared she wouldn't run. What planet do you live on? Turn off your tv.

Btw, I've worked with the Democratic Party in three states for more than two decades so I have a damn good Idea of leadership when I see it.

All of my efforts for the party were performed on planet Earth. So let that sink in.

Now, if you can present evidence on this board about Hillary "obeying Bush Sr. and his wife" let's have it. Otherwise you can pack it in and be on your way, along with your condescending attitude.

How can you have a productive discussion with someone with that viewpoint.

You can't.

The important thing is to draw the crackpots out and let them expose themselves to the entire board.

Although I'm not the one who alerted on that tinfoil hat, juvenile claptrap, it's good it was left for all to see and take note of who authored it.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS Apprenty Bush Sr. makes all the decisions for Hillary Clinton. This is bull and is something we don't need on a Democratic board. Please vote to hide this post, it's absurd, and trolling at its best.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:01 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yet another silly alert. Since when does a post containing some BS qualify as alert material? Leave the post there so it, and the poster who put it there, can be seen. STOP THE SILLY ALERTS!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The Bushes tell HRC what to do? wowsa for CT. Refute this and/or ignore the poster. I don't see it violating TOS. LEAVE irisblue
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post equates "what is good for Mrs Clinton" with doing as Bush Sr. says. It does not imply decisionmaking on his part for her. This kind of accusations may be inartful, but nowhere near trolling.
If that were trolling, then so should any implication be that voting for Mr. Sanders equals handing the White House to the GOP.
Quit the hyper-partisan alerting. It's an abuse of the jury system.

When I first quickly glanced at your post title I thought it was "No, Hillary Clinton Is Not a Monster." This is often the thought in my head here. Talk about Bullshit Mountain, there's a whole Bullshit Mountain Range.

Also ridiculous is the habit of some people to assume that just because one refuses to mindlessly believe lies and smears and silly conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, one is a Hillary-only supporter. It's far too early for me to even seriously think about it. It's interesting seeing how Clinton and Sanders are handling their campaigns. It's also ridiculous to find oneself being lectured to about what democratic socialism is. I've identified myself as a socialist for 35 years (and a commie when I'm in a bad mood). Not a fan of the bullshit.

Apparently this lie about Hillary is circulating on the internet.

It's so important to make sure everyone gets the true story on this. Hillary was not a Monsanto lawyer or employee.

Now on to the little things.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/03/video-hilary-clinton-endorses-gmos-solution-focused-crop-biotechnology/

I'm sure if someone did that about Sanders you'd also try to disprove it. Which I did successfully.

Yes Hillary supports GMO's at some level, most Americans do. Unless you shop exclusively organic at Whole Foods, it's likely you are supporting GMO's yourself. More reasearch needs to be done in the field, and dangerous goods should not be sold for public consumption.

You know, like these:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/15/1421400/-It-begins-Hillary-Clinton-smears-Bernie-Sanders-over-Single-Payer

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/02/the_bernie_sanders_smear_campaign_has_begun_how_his_opponents_will_try_to_take_him_down/

Desperate attempts by one of Sanders' opponents to derail him hasn't worked.

I don't worry about such "big things."

support warmly then that is what happens when one builds connections and their support in need would not be surprising.

No need to conflate one with the other.

I'd hope you'd stand up for your candidate too.

She gets profit shares in it by filling her coffers with their money.

Do you even like Monsanto?

Do you think it is good science?

Do you ever wonder what is happening to the food supply?

If you are fine with Monsanto, then she's your gal.

The graphic that was posted here was a complete lie. Some seem to have great respect for the dishonesty of the Benghazi committee and have decided to "go Gowdy" themselves. Seems they didn't stick around to see how the dishonest hearing went. The dishonesty they are promoting won't work.