Professional Protesters - $2500 to Protest Trump

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by davew

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

What does snopes say about this?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by davew

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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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]

Originally Posted by delayjf

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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."

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

What does snopes say about this?

Snopes is for dopes!

https://mobile.twitter.com/wesearchr...67854821134336

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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."

he didn't even read it.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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."

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.

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

[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.