Paid Protesters Protest not getting Paid

[JustWinBaby]

(05-21-2015, 10:50 PM)Devils Advocate Wrote: You do realize the Ferguson protests began the night Michael Brown was shot. What do paid protestors do while there's no protesting.... collect unemployment?

It's a good question. A better question is "don't protestors have jobs?"

And if it is structured as "travel reimbursement" or "grant", then it's probably not taxable and nor would it affect welfare benefits. Get a bus ticket for $50 then get reimbursed $300 for your travel = profit.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 12:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a good question.  A better question is "don't protestors have jobs?"

And if it is structured as "travel reimbursement" or "grant", then it's probably not taxable and nor would it affect welfare benefits.  Get a bus ticket for $50 then get reimbursed $300 for your travel = profit.

The link I provided said something about filling out a form and having receipts. So its not "Get a bus ticket for $50 then get reimbursed $300 for your travel = profit."

But I know the narrative of people weren't really upset about the police shooting someone it was just a small group who pays people to look upset because...politics?

And how the chance of being reimbursed rather than being hired and guaranteed pay isn't s nice to hear as people were genuinely inspired to protest.

I'm sure there are "professional protesters". I know people who are professional funeral goers...if someone dies they are at the church! LOL! But the NEED for it to be an organized rather than grassroots effort in order to somehow downplay the event that spurred it is bizarre to me.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2015, 12:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It's a good question.  A better question is "don't protestors have jobs?"

Every time I see a big protest or whatever from either side I think the same thing. Sometimes I want to go, but I'd rather make money.

Of course my dislike of large crowds helps with that.

[BmorePat87]

(05-21-2015, 11:08 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here.  All I see you showing is how people can be reimbursed for travel.  How does that mean people also weren't paid?

From the OP:

Quote:FrontPage Magazine reports that Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE) has been paying protesters $5,000 a month to demonstrate in Ferguson. Last week, hired protesters who haven’t been paid held a sit-in at MORE’s offices and posted a demand letter online.

The OP said that they are being paid $5,000 a month to demonstrate. It then said they were hired protestors.

Being reimbursed for travel expenses isn't the same as being paid to demonstrate nor does it make you a hired protestor.

That's the point. "All he is showing" is that the whole premise of this thread is flawed. If the post was "protestors are getting some travel expenses but the money ran out", then I'd understand why you are questioning GMDino.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2015, 08:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: From the OP:


The OP said that they are being paid $5,000 a month to demonstrate. It then said they were hired protestors.

Being reimbursed for travel expenses isn't the same as being paid to demonstrate nor does it make you a hired protestor.

That's the point. "All he is showing" is that the whole premise of this thread is flawed. If the post was "protestors are getting some travel expenses but the money ran out", then I'd understand why you are questioning GMDino.

So just because someone can provide a link where the protesters got a travel grant, that is proof they didn't get paid to protest? Crazy logic.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2015, 08:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: From the OP:


The OP said that they are being paid $5,000 a month to demonstrate. It then said they were hired protestors.

Being reimbursed for travel expenses isn't the same as being paid to demonstrate nor does it make you a hired protestor.

That's the point. "All he is showing" is that the whole premise of this thread is flawed. If the post was "protestors are getting some travel expenses but the money ran out", then I'd understand why you are questioning GMDino.

Pat, people are tweeting about #cutthecheck, smells like smoke to me. And, usually where there is smoke, there is fire. And, if there is somewhat proof that "protesters" were at least paid to travel, then doesn't is make it entirely possible that some were paid, or at least led to believe that they would be paid for "demonstrating"?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2015, 01:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pat, people are tweeting about #cutthecheck, smells like smoke to me.  And, usually where there is smoke, there is fire.  And, if there is somewhat proof that "protesters" were at least paid to travel, then doesn't is make it entirely possible that some were paid, or at least led to believe that they would be paid for "demonstrating"?

It is crazy the logic folks will come up with.

To them(like I mentioned before) if my company pays my travel expenses then that is "proof" they didn't pay me to perform my duties once I arrived. Somehow this logic makes complete sense to some.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So just because someone can provide a link where the protesters got a travel grant, that is proof they didn't get paid to protest? Crazy logic.

(05-22-2015, 01:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pat, people are tweeting about #cutthecheck, smells like smoke to me.  And, usually where there is smoke, there is fire.  And, if there is somewhat proof that "protesters" were at least paid to travel, then doesn't is make it entirely possible that some were paid, or at least led to believe that they would be paid for "demonstrating"?

There is more than a semantic difference between saying someone was given the opportunity to be reimbursed for doing something and they were hired and promised a payment for doing something.

But, again, just the slimmest of possibilities is enough to feed your narrative so I doubt you would see / understand the difference.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 01:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So just because someone can provide a link where the protesters got a travel grant, that is proof they didn't get paid to protest? Crazy logic.

There's actual proof they offered travel reimbursement from a found.


There's an unsubstantiated claim from a blog that they were each paid $5000 a month... Yea crazy logic

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is crazy the logic folks will come up with.

To them(like I mentioned before) if my company pays my travel expenses then that is "proof" they didn't pay me to perform my duties once I arrived. Somehow this logic makes complete sense to some.

Lol, there's no proof to the claim that they were paid $5000 a month to protest.

The fact that you have to change what we are saying to defend your silly blog story is pathetic but what we have come to expect from you.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2015, 01:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Lol, there's no proof to the claim that they were paid $5000 a month to protest.

The fact that you have to change what we are saying to defend your silly blog story is pathetic but what we have come to expect from you.

Proof? You really need hard evidence proof to believe that could have happened?

Let me ask you this; Suppose you look at your wife's phone, and notice a text from another man. The text says something on the order of "Last night was great, can't wait to see you again". Are you going to suspect that she was messing around, or do you need hardcore footage of her getting boned by the dude?

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 01:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Proof?  You really need hard evidence proof to believe that could have happened?

Let me ask you this;  Suppose you look at your wife's phone, and notice a text from another man.  The text says something on the order of "Last night was great, can't wait to see you again".  Are you going to suspect that she was messing around, or do you need hardcore footage of her getting boned by the dude?

I'm sure it has happened before for various causes. $5k a person? Lol, no way.


But if you're asking me to trust rando conservative blogs, I'm not buying. I do need hard evidence to believe something is fact.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2015, 01:24 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Lol, there's no proof to the claim that they were paid $5000 a month to protest.

The fact that you have to change what we are saying to defend your silly blog story is pathetic but what we have come to expect from you.

There are tweets and an open letter on the organizations website that states they have been denied compenstion while others have received it. However, even if the OP is found to be totally without merit; posting a link that shows that they were paid to travel to refute that they were paid to protest is ludicrous. Yet some will claim "Bingo".


What words have I changed, who is this "we", and enough about me?

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 01:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Proof?  You really need hard evidence proof to believe that could have happened?

Let me ask you this;  Suppose you look at your wife's phone, and notice a text from another man.  The text says something on the order of "Last night was great, can't wait to see you again".  Are you going to suspect that she was messing around, or do you need hardcore footage of her getting boned by the dude?

Would you immediately believe your wife is sleeping with another man or would you ask her and confront her with the evidence?

I trust my wife and would first assume its nothing...but ask anyway. No accuse her and assume I was absolutely right based on one small piece of evidence.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are tweets and an open letter on the organizations website that states they have been denied compenstion while others have received it. However, even if the OP is found to be totally without merit; posting a link that shows that they were paid to travel to refute that they were paid to protest is ludicrous. Yet some will claim "Bingo".


What words have I changed, who is this "we", and enough about me?

Were they hired to protest and promised money as you said?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2015, 01:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Would you immediately believe your wife is sleeping with another man or would you ask her and confront her with the evidence?

I trust my wife and would first assume its nothing...but ask anyway.  No accuse her and assume I was absolutely right based on one small piece of evidence.

If you truly trust your wife, you wouldn't even ask her, and jeopardize that trust.


But, since you admitted that you would confront her in that scenario, you tacitly admit that you would be suspicious. In order for suspicion to exist in your mind, you would totally have to believe that there was a possibility that something terrible may have happened. (kind of like the old smoke and fire analogy)

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 01:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: If you truly trust your wife, you wouldn't even ask her, and jeopardize that trust.  


But, since you admitted that you would confront her in that scenario, you tacitly admit that you would be suspicious.  In order for suspicion to exist in your mind, you would totally have to believe that there was a possibility that something terrible may have happened.  (kind of like the old smoke and fire analogy)

But that is not what you asked:

(05-22-2015, 01:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Let me ask you this;  Suppose you look at your wife's phone, and notice a text from another man.  The text says something on the order of "Last night was great, can't wait to see you again".  Are you going to suspect that she was messing around, or do you need hardcore footage of her getting boned by the dude?

Of course I'd ask what it was about...but with the assumption of innocence as the text is no kind of proof of anything. That is completely different from assuming its true vs hardcore proof. And if you DON'T trust your wife to the point that a single text from another man makes you totally suspicious and assuming the worst than you already had your suspicions and were looking for anything that provided "proof".

And in the end what the OP said was clearly wrong based on the "proof" he offered.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are tweets and an open letter on the organizations website that states they have been denied compenstion while others have received it. However, even if the OP is found to be totally without merit; posting a link that shows that they were paid to travel to refute that they were paid to protest is ludicrous. Yet some will claim "Bingo".


What words have I changed, who is this "we", and enough about me?

You're attempting to say that our logic is that since they were paid for travel, they weren't paid salaries. Both Dino and myself noted that we reject the hired statement because there's no evidence. There is evidence, though, that they were promised travel reimbursement, so it's not a stretch to say the check they want is for that travel money.

Also looking through Twitter, all the hashtags are people commenting on the story, not actual protestors. Only one tweet seems to be screenshotted and passed around and the person just says Orgsnizemo needs to do what it promised and give the money that they received for them to them. So... The travel pay....

[BmorePat87]

I've never liked ACORN, so I'm not defending this offshoot, but is there any actual evidence?

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2015, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: But that is not what you asked:

What I asked is if you would suspect her of messing around..

By asking her about it, suspicion must exist.