Paid Protesters Protest not getting Paid

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 02:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What I asked is if you would suspect her of messing around..

By asking her about it, suspicion must exist.

Not how I read it. I took it as would you accuse her based on the "proof" of the text or wait until you had "hard evidence". I would not accuse her about it based on a text. I may / would ask her about it.

And, again, the "proof" offered in the OP does not prove what the OP claimed.

If you want to make the argument that it needs more research that's fine by me. Its how I found out the OP was wrong in the first place.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2015, 02:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not how I read it.  I took it as would you accuse her based on the "proof" of the text or wait until you had "hard evidence".  I would not accuse her about it based on a text.  I may / would ask her about it.  

And, again, the "proof" offered in the OP does not prove what the OP claimed.

If you want to make the argument that it needs more research that's fine  by me.  Its how I found out the OP was wrong in the first place.

If people are tweeting about not getting their pay for demonstrating, that is enough to cause me to suspect that some people at least were under the impression that they were going to be paid for being there.

Just like in my text analogy, those tweets are not hard evidence, but it is enough to raise the question.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2015, 02:00 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.  

Nope, right here Dino proclaims his link is "proof" that they were not hired to protest (even put it in caps)

(05-21-2015, 11:42 AM)GMDino Wrote: Because they weren't HIRED to protest and then shipped there are the conspiracy people like to think...and post.

They can request to reimbursed for what they did.

(05-22-2015, 01:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Were they hired to protest and promised money as you said?

I didn't say they were. I merely posted a link that stated they were. I think I've said more than once in this thread; I do not "know". And usually not "knowing" puts you in the minority around here. For instance you 'know" they weren't paid to protest because you have a link that shows they were paid to travel.

The only similarities between the two is the funds are funneled through the same organization. Your link speaks of travel only and indicates a $20,000 cap. The OP mentions nothing of travel and lists funds of $50,000 in compensation already paid and another $57,000 expected.

How in "Dinoworld"  does one article do anything to disprove the other?

Apparently tweets from the individuals and an open source letter from the protesting organization's website is not enough. Admitedly some Right Wing blogs have ran with and perhaps embelished the story. I'll bet if Mother Jones or Huffinton Post posted that ish; you'd be all over it, but Washington Times is to be ignored.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-22-2015, 07:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: The link I provided said something about filling out a form and having receipts.

The link you provided said nothing about receipts, unless it's on the actual form itself (which I'm not logging into to view).

Further, it specifically refers to "approved funding", which very likely means something specifically different and carefully chosen to mean something different from travel reimbursement. For grants, typically you apply and then perform/produce some sort of research or report - exactly as this is set up.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, right here Dino proclaims his link is "proof" that they were not hired to protest (even put it in caps)




I didn't say they were. I merely posted a link that stated they were. I think I've said more than once in this thread; I do not "know". And usually not "knowing" puts you in the minority around here. For instance you 'know" they weren't paid to protest because you have a link that shows they were paid to travel.

The only similarities between the two is the funds are funneled through the same organization. Your link speaks of travel only and indicates a $20,000 cap. The OP mentions nothing of travel and lists funds of $50,000 in compensation already paid and another $57,000 expected.

How in "Dinoworld"  does one article do anything to disprove the other?

Apparently tweets from the individuals and an open source letter from the protesting organization's website is not enough. Admitedly some Right Wing blogs have ran with and perhaps embelished the story. I'll bet if Mother Jones or Huffinton Post posted that ish; you'd be all over it, but Washington Times is to be ignored.

Your story had no evidence and his link did, hence his statement.

Also, Washington times is not reporting its own research. They reporting on an Internet magazine that is reporting on a blog. Funny enough, foxnews.com has now run a story reporting on the Washington times story.

If there was actual evidence, this might be interesting. All we have is forms saying you'll get travel reimbursement, so it's safe to say they were not hired as the blog claims without any proof.

[SunsetBengal]

(05-22-2015, 02:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Your story had no evidence and his link did, hence his statement.

Also, Washington times is not reporting its own research. They reporting on an Internet magazine that is reporting on a blog. Funny enough, foxnews.com has now run a story reporting on the Washington times story.

If there was actual evidence, this might be interesting. All we have is forms saying you'll get travel reimbursement, so it's safe to say they were not hired as the blog claims without any proof.

So, are you just dismissing the tweets as meaningless?

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 02:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, are you just dismissing the tweets as meaningless?

No, I said there were no actual tweets from protestor. if you're going to say that the use of the hashtag is evidence, it should at least be in use by those you're saying are using it, not conservatives mocking the story on Twitter.

If the tweets were there they would be meaningful. As I said, the only tweet was a screenshot of a tweet and the person didn't say they were hired.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope, right here Dino proclaims his link is "proof" that they were not hired to protest (even put it in caps)


I didn't say they were. I merely posted a link that stated they were. I think I've said more than once in this thread; I do not "know". And usually not "knowing" puts you in the minority around here. For instance you 'know" they weren't paid to protest because you have a link that shows they were paid to travel.

Weird. I would think you quoting the story and adding the line about it being a "pretty good deal" meant you agreed.

(05-20-2015, 08:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/hired-black-lives-matter-protesters-start-cutthech/#ixzz3acmWpseK


$5,000 a month and all you can loot seems like a pretty good deal.

But as usual the White Man is to blame:

And then suggesting that the actual groups web page and how it was twisted by whatever source you had didn't change the OP.

(05-20-2015, 10:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure anything you posted refutes what the OP suggested.

Is it you assertion that it doesn't count as getting paid to protest; it only counts as get paid to travel to the protest site? I can see that makes a world of difference.

Already you were just trying to defend yourself by saying the OP was still correct...but it meant they got paid...not hired.

(05-22-2015, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The only similarities between the two is the funds are funneled through the same organization. Your link speaks of travel only and indicates a $20,000 cap. The OP mentions nothing of travel and lists funds of $50,000 in compensation already paid and another $57,000 expected.

How in "Dinoworld"  does one article do anything to disprove the other?

Apparently tweets from the individuals and an open source letter from the protesting organization's website is not enough. Admitedly some Right Wing blogs have ran with and perhaps embelished the story. I'll bet if Mother Jones or Huffinton Post posted that ish; you'd be all over it, but Washington Times is to be ignored.

Go all the way back to the 3rd post. I explained how I followed you link back to where the story came from...and how it was not correct.

Other than that you can now continue changing what you mean, redefining "hired" and "paid protesters" and your belief that the protests were therefore not organic and part of some conspiracy that I haven't quite figured out what it is yet.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 02:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The link you provided said nothing about receipts, unless it's on the actual form itself (which I'm not logging into to view).

Further, it specifically refers to "approved funding", which very likely means something specifically different and carefully chosen to mean something different from travel reimbursement.   For grants, typically you apply and then perform/produce some sort of research or report - exactly as this is set up.

The application doesn't require receipts, just a proposed budget. It also says that the money needs to be used for travel and some shared resources for any people who are there (tents, art supplies, etc). Basically it's a fund to help people get there and make posters. It does say they may be required to present to the group about what they did there as a condition for getting reimbursement.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-22-2015, 02:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: All we have is forms saying you'll get travel reimbursement

Again, it's FUNDING which is different from reimbursement. And it makes perfect sense why they would attempt to release the money in advance so people can actually, you know, pay for their travel. And, hey, it's not just travel - after all you'll need money to make signs, buy bottles (more fun than rocks) and eat at McD's.

Because there's this nugget:
"Failure to provide a report back will result in no longer being eligible for future funding opportunities."

It's not nearly the same as being "paid" to protest, but it certainly does smell like a set-up to fund professional protestors. Not a shock, seeing as one of these was formerly known as ACORN.

And it may not be literally "bussing" people in, but it's certainly set-up so people can self-bus.

In general, I have 3 or 4 problems with this (each giving rise to multiple issues on their own)
1) when it's not a nationally organized protest (like a march on the Capital), then local protests should be composed of locals.
2) nothing wrong with traveling to support them and joining in, but then there's something about getting funded to travel that makes it seem much less genuine
3) the money would better be used to reimburse property damage and medical bills when these protests turn violent
4) they are literally soliciting people to travel and create stories

[JustWinBaby]

(05-22-2015, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Basically it's a fund to help people get there and make posters.

Which is a creative way of saying people are paid to protest. It need not be much, when people don't have jobs they can be pretty resourceful in picking up some quick cash. Get $300, maybe you spend $50 (or less)...nice profit for a few days work. Maybe you have to BS your way thru a report, maybe you'll be excluded from future funding...doesn't matter, that's cash money today.

I mean, c'mon, that money could easily be used to provide food and resources on site. They know exactly what they are doing giving this money out for people to "buy" that on their own. ACORN is well aware that even small financial incentives can significantly boost "grass roots" movements.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 03:20 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Which is a creative way of saying people are paid to protest.   It need not be much, when people don't have jobs they can be pretty resourceful in picking up some quick cash.  Get $300, maybe you spend $50 (or less)...nice profit for a few days work.  Maybe you have to BS your way thru a report, maybe you'll be excluded from future funding...doesn't matter, that's cash money today.

I mean, c'mon, that money could easily be used to provide food and resources on site.  They know exactly what they are doing giving this money out for people to "buy" that on their own.  ACORN is well aware that even small financial incentives can significantly boost "grass roots" movements.

You're not getting paid to do it, they're just funding the costs to you. Unless you're scamming them by lying about costs, you're not making money.

It certainly seems open to exploitation by groups that just go around and protest, but it isn't anywhere close to people getting paid $5,000 a month to protest.

[GMDino]

(05-22-2015, 02:31 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: The link you provided said nothing about receipts, unless it's on the actual form itself (which I'm not logging into to view).

Further, it specifically refers to "approved funding", which very likely means something specifically different and carefully chosen to mean something different from travel reimbursement.   For grants, typically you apply and then perform/produce some sort of research or report - exactly as this is set up.

(05-22-2015, 02:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The application doesn't require receipts, just a proposed budget. It also says that the money needs to be used for travel and some shared resources for any people who are there (tents, art supplies, etc). Basically it's a fund to help people get there and make posters. It does say they may be required to present to the group about what they did there as a condition for getting reimbursement.

Yeah, that was my bad. I went by memory rather than read it. Still isn't "hiring" anyone to get paid to protest...and loot. Which I've been told is a good thing if you can get it.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-22-2015, 03:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You're not getting paid to do it

No, they LITERALLY are a paid protestor. Protesting is a volunteer, out-of-pocket activity. If two people have the same expenses and one gets money and the other doesn't, you can call it whatever you want but one got paid and one didn't.

Agreed $5000 is ridiculous and completely lacking of common sense. You don't need to pay anyone $5000 a month when you can easily round-up a couple dozen "volunteers" for like $10 each. But dangle a few hundred in front of someone and you draw just the sort of activist you want at your protest, like the obnoxious white hipster who appears angry over not being born black (LOL, they are always the worst having to be up front and testing the limits as if they're afraid they won't stand out from the crowd...gotta make sure you get on the news so you can link your Facebook so everyone knows what a good person you are ).

[JustWinBaby]

(05-22-2015, 03:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Unless you're scamming them by lying about costs

LOL, yeah, I'm sure that NEVER happens. And I'm sure ACORN would be devastated if people took advantage like that.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 03:43 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, they LITERALLY are a paid protestor.  Protesting is a volunteer, out-of-pocket activity.  If two people have the same expenses and one gets money and the other doesn't, you can call it whatever you want but one got paid and one didn't.

Agreed $5000 is ridiculous and completely lacking of common sense.  You don't need to pay anyone $5000 a month when you can easily round-up a couple dozen "volunteers" for like $10 each.  But dangle a few hundred in front of someone and you draw just the sort of activist you want at your protest, like the obnoxious white hipster who appears angry over not being born black (LOL, they are always the worst having to be up front and testing the limits as if they're afraid they won't stand out from the crowd...gotta make sure you get on the news so you can link your Facebook so everyone knows what a good person you are   ).

Again, they're not getting paid to protest. They were not hired.

If you're now trying to argue semantics that the simple fact that money was given to them to reimburse their travel expenses means they were technically paid money, then go ahead and cling to that. No one has yet to show how they were "hired" or "paid to protest".

The premise of this thread was that these people were hired at $5k a month and are not getting paid that salary. This is unsubstantiated. What has been shown is that they were able to apply for funding to pay for their travel and supplies.

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 03:47 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LOL, yeah, I'm sure that NEVER happens.  And I'm sure ACORN would be devastated if people took advantage like that.

Oh, I'm sure it happens in most organizations that allow this. This would be the only way that the protestors are making money off of this. It's also fraud and does not constitute being hired.

[JustWinBaby]

(05-22-2015, 03:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, they're not getting paid to protest. They were not hired.

Never heard of a paid volunteer, huh? And, um, aren't they submitting an application?

It's not semantics. Paid literally means the transfer of money from one person or organization to another. If one protestor receives money and another doesn't, does that just make them relatively more or less "unpaid"?

[BmorePat87]

(05-22-2015, 04:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Never heard of a paid volunteer, huh?  And, um, aren't they submitting an application?

It's not semantics.  Paid literally means the transfer of money from one person or organization to another.  If one protestor receives money and another doesn't, does that just make them relatively more or less "unpaid"?

In this thread, "paid protestor" was used synonymously with "hired protestor", as in they were paid to go out and protest. This is based on OP's story.

I made it a point to phrase things "paid to protest" or "hired protestor" for this very reason as I knew people would run to this semantic. Like I said, if your response to me pointing out that there is no evidence that they were hired or paid to protest is "technically paid protestor could mean they were given money to help pay for their out of pocket expenses" then that's fine. It doesn't actually refute anything I said as getting reimbursed is not the same as being hired to do something.


oh... and for your other point:

-yea, paid volunteers exist. Some are hired to do the "volunteer" work. Some are given reimbursement for out of pocket costs. Since one is considered a job, they are very different things

-I also have to fill out an application for a marriage license. That doesn't mean the county government is hiring me. I have to fill out an application for college. That doesn't mean my college hired me. They're filling out applications for receiving funding, not for getting hired.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2015, 03:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Oh, I'm sure it happens in most organizations that allow this. This would be the only way that the protestors are making money off of this. It's also fraud and does not constitute being hired.

I sure we call all agree W2s were not involved; however, if folks want to assume that at least a few "protestors' were not compensated for their time, then I'll just disagree with that assumption.