It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vice News D.C. Chief Admits There Were ‘Paid’ Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters

page: 5
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Okay, I'm back from the office. Let's see here...


originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian

Do you have proof those women were paid, or are you attempting to compare advertising and promotional expenses from donations to a volunteer organization to paying actual protest participants so they'll protest?


So you're claiming that the OP proves the "paying [of] actual protest participants so they'll protest?" Ana Maria Archila is one of three co-executive directors of the Center for Popular Democracy along with Brian Kettering and Andrew Friedman.

She's not a "paid protester" — she's co-executive directive (top executive position in the hierarchy) at a fairly large non-profit. Looks like her salary is about $160k based on the 990 from 2016. An equivalent position in Concerned Women for America would be that of Penny Young Nance (CEO). Ms. Nance made $175k in base compensation in 2016 according to CWA's 990.

Here you can see Nance at the "I stand with Brett" rally on C-SPAN. Go ahead and Google "Penny Nance Kavanaugh" if you want. She bused in students from Liberty University on that bus:

Kavanau gh protesters answered by supporters from conservative Liberty University


The "I Stand With Brett" rally on Capitol Hill is expected to draw hundreds, said Penny Nance, president and CEO of CWA. (She wrote an opinion piece defending Kavanaugh for USA TODAY.) She couldn't estimate how many Liberty students would arrive in Washington via the "Women for Kavanaugh" bus.


But wait, there's more!

So part of the manufactured outrage, as signaled by Trump, is that the Center for Popular Democracy receives funding from Soros's Open Society Foundation. Here you can see some RT propaganda (always a good place to check if you want to put your finger on the pulse of the American right-wing — amirite?!):

Grassroots outrage? Soros-funded activists behind anti-Kavanaugh campaign


The ambush, it seems, paid off – but there's more to the story. One of the women who confronted Flake, Ana Maria Archila, is the co-executive director of a non-profit activist group called Center for Popular Democracy (CPD). The organization, as it turns out, receives generous funding from liberal billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.

Records show that Soros is one of the three largest donors to CPD, with his organization giving $130,000 in 2014 and $1,164,500 in 2015. Soros gave an additional $1.5 million to the group in 2016 and 2017.

Soros also donated $1.2 million to sister organization Center for Popular Democracy Action, which organized protests against Kavanaugh's nomination hearings in early September, resulting in some 200 arrests.


So here you can see RT feeding the same narrative as the OP. So what about CWA? Must be all small dollar donations right? Of course it's not.

Sourcewatch


CWA was part of the Koch brothers' $400 million network in the 2012 election cycle.[5] It has received substantial funding from the Koch donor network in recent years. The Kochs' Freedom Partners gave CWA $8.15 million in 2012, and the Center to Protect Patient Rights gave donations totaling $1,678,073 to CWA between 2010 and 2012. DonorsTrust, a donor-advised fund to which the Kochs contribute, reported a $70,000 grant to CWA in 2010.


So here we have two female activists running billionaire-funded non-profits. Both were on the ground in DC for the Kavanaugh confirmation. One was organizing supporters and the other protesters.

But hey, you're always welcome to start the "OMG! OMG! LOOK LOOK LOOK! KAVANAUGH HAD KOCH PAID SUPPORTERS!" chorus.




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You still don't understand the difference between supporting/standing for something and opposing/complain about everything, do you?



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Surely though one would have to be a little naive to think only one side do this snip.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian

You still don't understand the difference between supporting/standing for something and opposing/complain about everything, do you?


Let me give it a shot...

When Democrats are running #, right-wingers oppose/complain about everything and when Republicans are in power, they become "supporters."

When Republicans are running #, left-wingers oppose/complain about everything and when Democrats are in power, they become "supporters."



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes and no. The Democrats, even when they're positioned to support something, tend to go abstract... "Anybody but Bush," "Must stop Trump," "Resist." The Republicans, generally speaking, have something they directly support... "MAGA," "Bush," "Lowering taxes," "Right to Life."



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I believe the OP asserts that the narrative has been that it doesn't happen at all, and only whacko conspiracists believe it happens.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Yes and no. The Democrats, even when they're positioned to support something, tend to go abstract... "Anybody but Bush," "Must stop Trump," "Resist." The Republicans, generally speaking, have something they directly support... "MAGA," "Bush," "Lowering taxes," "Right to Life."


That's all in your head. I've heard "he wasn't Clinton" about 100,000 times since the election, #NeverTrump was a conservative movement, after Obama was inaugurated top congressional Republicans devised a strategy of blanket obstructionism, Merrick Garland, etc.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

#NeverTrump was a RINO movement, y'know, the liberal arm of the GOP? As far as "blanket obstructionism" goes, stop and think for a moment... did it ever dawn on you that maybe, just maybe that obstructionism was driven by a desire to prevent further damage to this country, considering all the GD damage the bastard did in his two years with a totally in-pocket Congress?

Merrick Garland... pfft. That's how to say no to a SCOTUS candidate without attempting to destroy his reputation and life in the name of partisan bull#.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

The woman in that photo has been identified. She is from Bennington, Vermont. She was one of about half a dozen protesters to drive down from the Vermont group, Rights & Democracy.

Like other protesters, she was given $35 to cover any fees if she was arrested. About 80 were from what I remember. All money was to be returned if not used.

I'm not going to post the names but this wasn't hard to look into. Nobody is driving down to DC from Vermont to get arrested for $35.

Let me know if you want a link to a local newspaper story with an interview from her and I'll U2U it.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


just maybe that obstructionism was driven by a desire to prevent further damage to this country,


So when conservatives do it, it's "driven by a desire to prevent further damage to this country" but when liberals do it, it's because they don't have anything to support.

Sounds legit.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's sort of in the definition of "Conservative" which means one who seeks to conserve and maintain existing norms, conditions, and views.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical
Why they signed up an experienced and capable Judge. They did their job. Just because you didn't like the candidate doesn't mean anything.

edit on 8-10-2018 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Just goes to show how dumb they are and how cheap George Soros is.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: theantediluvian

Just goes to show how dumb they are and how cheap George Soros is.


I believe they prefer the word "frugal" or "thrifty."



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


It's sort of in the definition of "Conservative" which means one who seeks to conserve and maintain existing norms, conditions, and views.


Yes, conservatives are anti-progress. That's why conservatives fought to preserve things like slavery and segregation and to stop women and black folks from voting and most recently, same sex couples from getting married.

How many more times are you going to shift position? First it was conservatives are for specific things and liberals are against abstract notions or something. Then it was conservatives are against things because they're trying to stop liberals from doing damage. And now you've gone completely round the bend to of course conservatives are against everything.




posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Yeah, I read snopes too.

Convenient explanation.

Where's the evidence that was the case? Surely there has to be some online/text communication available to prove this was the case.

It's nice to see you buy into BS nowadays. Definitely helps your credibility.



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

If they were Not Paid , chances are they would be at Home in the Basement Playing First Person Shooter Games on their PC 's while Mommy tells them to Turn Down the Sound ................



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You literally just named two achievements of the Republican Party: ending slavery and the 15th Amendment. The GOP was not "progressive" or liberal at any point, they simply were and are the party of personal responsibility, Constitutional rights and law, and the party of pragmatism.

Congratulations, you just played yourself.
-DJ Khaled



posted on Oct, 8 2018 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I believe the OP asserts that the narrative has been that it doesn't happen at all, and only whacko conspiracists believe it happens.



Yes I have, multiple multiple times, but that seems to be conveniently ignored in favor of some false tit for tat narrative.....




top topics



 
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join