Professional Protesters - $2500 to Protest Trump

[delayjf]

Not even in office and he's already putting people back to work. :ThmbUp:
Righteous bucks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/

[chadk66]

yep. many left ND for greener pastures knowing the pipe is going in four days from now :lol:

[boxcar]

I love this paragraph from the WT link:

Demand Protest, a San Francisco company that bills itself as the “largest private grassroots support organization in the United States,” posted identical ads Jan. 12 in multiple cities on Backpage.com seeking “operatives.”

One would think that a true grassroots movement would be self-motivating, not needing the help of any greenbacks to get it going. With "thinking" like that expressed in the above paragraph, it's no wonder Kalifornia is so screwed up!

[davew]

Busloads of terrorist agitators arriving in Washington DC. I wonder if the new administration will charge the Ford Foundation and Soros group for what they are.

[woodtoo]

I'm shocked the Post covered this at all. it is supposed to be fake news.
Veritas has an undercover video with DistruptJ20 with another coming soon. They responded by saying they trolled O'Keefe. :lol:
At the Deploraball on the 19th they hatched a plan to poison the event with
butyric acid.

[Tom]

A large contingent of Bikers for Trump! will also be in DC this weekend.

Hoping to see some cultural "shock" in the streets of our capital. :eek::lol:

[NJ Stinks]

I'm shocked the Post covered this at all. it is supposed to be fake news.
Veritas has an undercover video with DistruptJ20 with another coming soon. They responded by saying they trolled O'Keefe. :lol:
At the Deploraball on the 19th they hatched a plan to poison the event with
butyric acid.

The Washington Times is not and never will be the Washington Post.

[BaffertsWig]

I'm indifferent about the impending Trump presidency, but hell... $2500 is $2500 :lol:

[Tom]

The Washington Times is not and never will be the Washington Post.

Ya got that straight! :lol:

[boxcar]

The Washington Times is not and never will be the Washington Post.

AMEN, bro; preach it! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[EasyGoer89]

The Washington Times is not and never will be the Washington Post.

So you're saying the Washington times is NOT fake news? Good to know!

[delayjf]

I'm indifferent about the impending Trump presidency, but hell... $2500 is $2500

I'm thinking the same thing and I voted for Trump. At the first sign of trouble, I'm dropping my sign and heading to the rear - let the believers take the lumps.

[woodtoo]

Who goes to battle for money, mercenaries. Of course these ones are chicken $hits and will run when outnumbered. I don't trust the DC cops but do trust Bikers for Trump.

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

A large contingent of Bikers for Trump! will also be in DC this weekend.

Hoping to see some cultural "shock" in the streets of our capital. :eek::lol:

Hope the bikers kick some azzz if need be!!! LOL All in the spirit of the return of America.

[davew]

Can anyone link to one of the advertisements or is it all a hoax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iOVjodkCDo

[woodtoo]

Can anyone link to one of the advertisements or is it all a hoax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iOVjodkCDo
I find it self explanatory. Gotta give him credit for a fast thinking about face.

[mostpost]

This is really pathetic; even for you guys. The headline reads, "Hoax Ads In Two Dozen Cities Offered Protesters $2500 To Agitate At Trump Inaugural." That does not mean that there were no ads. It means there was no genuine offer to pay protesters any amount.

The question is, what is the motivation behind these Fake Ads? Obviously it is to make us believe that the protests which will occur are bought and paid for. Believe me there is ample anger and dismay at Trump being president. There is no need to pay protesters.

[woodtoo]

This is really pathetic; even for you guys. The headline reads, "Hoax Ads In Two Dozen Cities Offered Protesters $2500 To Agitate At Trump Inaugural." That does not mean that there were no ads. It means there was no genuine offer to pay protesters any amount.

The question is, what is the motivation behind these Fake Ads? Obviously it is to make us believe that the protests which will occur are bought and paid for. Believe me there is ample anger and dismay at Trump being president. There is no need to pay protesters.
What does snopes say about this?

[mostpost]

Can anyone link to one of the advertisements or is it all a hoax?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iOVjodkCDo
Tucker Carlson is a self involved idiot. He wastes all that time trying to prove what is obvious to all. Dom Pullipso is punking everyone. He made Carlson look like a fool.

This video did change my opinion on one thing. The purpose of the Ads was not to make it seem like the Democrats were paying protesters. The purpose was to make the Republicans look like fools. And it succeeded. Tucker Carlson's outrage proves that.

As for the ads, I think they exist. I don't think they are real; if you can see the difference.

[delayjf]

This video did change my opinion on one thing. The purpose of the Ads was not to make it seem like the Democrats were paying protesters. The purpose was to make the Republicans look like fools. And it succeeded. Tucker Carlson's outrage proves that.

That's not how I saw it, Carlson called him out on his lies, how did he get punked?

[davew]

Tucker Carlson is a self involved idiot. He wastes all that time trying to prove what is obvious to all. Dom Pullipso is punking everyone. He made Carlson look like a fool.

This video did change my opinion on one thing. The purpose of the Ads was not to make it seem like the Democrats were paying protesters. The purpose was to make the Republicans look like fools. And it succeeded. Tucker Carlson's outrage proves that.

As for the ads, I think they exist. I don't think they are real; if you can see the difference.

How do you know they were fake ads? Did someone pay for these ads? Did they actually exist? Please tell us all knowing dem.

[mostpost]

Not even in office and he's already putting people back to work. :ThmbUp:
Righteous bucks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/
I was fascinated reading the comments after the Washington Times article. Despite the fact that the Headline said "Hoax ads." Despite the fact the whole thing was labeled fake news. Despite the fact that snopes branded it as false and even infowars figured out what was going on. In spite of all this, dozens of commentors railed against George Soros for funding the agitators.

We are not supposed to think you guys are stupid. That is very hard to do.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tucker Carlson is a self involved idiot. He wastes all that time trying to prove what is obvious to all. Dom Pullipso is punking everyone. He made Carlson look like a fool.

This video did change my opinion on one thing. The purpose of the Ads was not to make it seem like the Democrats were paying protesters. The purpose was to make the Republicans look like fools. And it succeeded. Tucker Carlson's outrage proves that.

As for the ads, I think they exist. I don't think they are real; if you can see the difference.I watched the Tucker Carlson interview you write of above.

From the start Tucker doesn't try and prove anything. From the start, he tells the guy he's a hoax and tells him why he's a hoax. There was nothing to prove as it was was obvious.

And Carlson wasn't outraged at all...in fact, he was laughing most of the interview...it was, all in all, a fairly good-natured interview on both sides.

Did you even watch it?

[OntheRail]

I watched the Tucker Carlson interview you write of above.

From the start Tucker doesn't try and prove anything. From the start, he tells the guy he's a hoax and tells him why he's a hoax. There was nothing to prove as it was was obvious.

And Carlson wasn't outraged at all...in fact, he was laughing most of the interview...it was, all in all, a fairly good-natured interview on both sides.

Did you even watch it?


I'm sure MoPo read the DNC cliff-notes... :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

I was fascinated reading the comments after the Washington Times article. Despite the fact that the Headline said "Hoax ads." Despite the fact the whole thing was labeled fake news. Despite the fact that snopes branded it as false and even infowars figured out what was going on. In spite of all this, dozens of commentors railed against George Soros for funding the agitators.

We are not supposed to think you guys are stupid. That is very hard to do.Listen, Mr. Slow...there was a REAL ARTICLE on Tuesday reporting this as real in the Washington Times, and I bet that's where the comments were generated from. Often times, when an online publication REVISES an article (which the WashTimes obviously did since the original link in this thread goes to the new HOAX headline story), the comments from the original article are still there to read even though the story has been revised completely.

As you can plainly read in the NEW revised article that you are strutting around claiming is SO OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain like yours, you read the following:

"The Washington Times reported Tuesday that ads offering activists up to $2,500 per month to protest the inaugural of President-elect Donald Trump were running in more than two dozen cities, posted by a company called Demand Protest.

All that was accurate — the ads were real, and they did in fact run on Backpage.com. But Demand Protest was evidently a hoax or a prank."

So, you see, your condescension is born purely out of 20/20 hindsight. Congrats on being so "smart." :rolleyes:

[EasyGoer89]

What does snopes say about this?

Snopes is for dopes!

https://mobile.twitter.com/wesearchr/status/820067854821134336

[chadk66]

Listen, Mr. Slow...there was a REAL ARTICLE on Tuesday reporting this as real in the Washington Times, and I bet that's where the comments were generated from. Often times, when an online publication REVISES an article (which the WashTimes obviously did since the original link in this thread goes to the new HOAX headline story), the comments from the original article are still there to read even though the story has been revised completely.

As you can plainly read in the NEW revised article that you are strutting around claiming is SO OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain like yours, you read the following:

"The Washington Times reported Tuesday that ads offering activists up to $2,500 per month to protest the inaugural of President-elect Donald Trump were running in more than two dozen cities, posted by a company called Demand Protest.

All that was accurate — the ads were real, and they did in fact run on Backpage.com. But Demand Protest was evidently a hoax or a prank."

So, you see, your condescension is born purely out of 20/20 hindsight. Congrats on being so "smart." :rolleyes:he didn't even read it.

[mostpost]

Listen, Mr. Slow...there was a REAL ARTICLE on Tuesday reporting this as real in the Washington Times, and I bet that's where the comments were generated from. Often times, when an online publication REVISES an article (which the WashTimes obviously did since the original link in this thread goes to the new HOAX headline story), the comments from the original article are still there to read even though the story has been revised completely.

As you can plainly read in the NEW revised article that you are strutting around claiming is SO OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain like yours, you read the following:

"The Washington Times reported Tuesday that ads offering activists up to $2,500 per month to protest the inaugural of President-elect Donald Trump were running in more than two dozen cities, posted by a company called Demand Protest.

All that was accurate — the ads were real, and they did in fact run on Backpage.com. But Demand Protest was evidently a hoax or a prank."

So, you see, your condescension is born purely out of 20/20 hindsight. Congrats on being so "smart." :rolleyes:
Regardless, those people are all too willing to believe any lies about Soros or the evil democrats without a shred of proof. You claim there was an original article which I did not see. So, apparently, the Washington Times ran a story without bothering to sufficiently vet it.

When you read that original story on Tuesday morning was your reaction "Oh those dirty Democrats" or was it "Let's see if this is true or not."

Since delayjf posted this thread at 8:57 yesterday morning, I know what he did.

As for my condescension, as soon as I read the thread title, I was suspicious. Just from the source-The Washington Times-I knew there was more to the story. And, son of a gun, I was right. How does that saying go, "If you can do it, it ain't bragging."

[Tom]

Thanks, PA.
So I guess the WT actually did print Fake News. :lol::lol::lol:

mostie......it's alright, we understand this is the worst week of your life.:cool:

[Valuist]

I tried to find Demand Protest in SF as I wanted to infiltrate their organization; agitate the agitators....and get paid. But I couldn't find a number.

[davew]

I tried to find Demand Protest in SF as I wanted to infiltrate their organization; agitate the agitators....and get paid. But I couldn't find a number.

There is a San Francisco area code phone number on their website

https://www.demandprotest.com/index.html