Spontaneous protests were planned by the left

[Tijuana]

I found this to be interesting. It's an opinion piece but, it has sourced facts and quotes.

http://www.investors.com/politics/co...aneous-at-all/

There was always something fishy about the outbreak of "spontaneous" protests at airports around the country in the immediate wake of President Trump's executive order pausing visas and refugees from terror-prone countries.

Not that you'd suspect anything from the way they were covered. Nearly every story published over that weekend stated without equivocation that the protests were an unplanned and visceral reaction to Trump's executive order. Examples:

"Spontaneous Protests Hit Airports Across America Following Trump's Executive Order"

"Protest Grows 'Out of Nowhere' at Kennedy Airport"

"The senseless cruelty of the executive order has led to spontaneous protests at many of America's major airports."

"Word of the spontaneous demonstration was spread across social media."

But these protests weren't spontaneous at all. They were, in fact, the result of months of careful planning by hard-core left-wing activist groups.

"News reports and TV broadcasts about the week's protests described the events as 'spontaneous protests' mounted in response to the Trump administration's travel and immigration executive order," author Asawin Suebsaeng writes at the liberal leaning Daily Beast. "But to Make the Road New York, and the groups like it across the country, there was nothing 'spontaneous' about it."

Suebsaeng notes that "professional organizers had been waiting and planning for this type of mass, direct action — ready-made to go viral on social media — even since, well Nov. 9." These professional organizers, he says have been "anticipating and mapping out their battle plans for Trump's orders on deportations, bans, and detention."

The executive director of the Arab American Action Network told Suebsaeng that "we had been laying the groundwork for this for a long, long time."

Since Trump had made clear that he planned — on day one, in fact — to issue a temporary ban on visas and refugees from terror prone countries, all these groups had to do was wait until he made good on that pledge to spring into action.

What's amazing isn't the planning or the execution of these protests, but the fact that the media acted as though it was all happening without any planning or coordination at all.

This was important because making the protests appear spontaneous gave them a sense of urgency and legitimacy they otherwise wouldn't have had.

As the Huffington Post put it: "These powerful images show Americans everywhere rallying against the president's immigration crackdown."

Did these news outlets know that the airport protests had been carefully planned? Or that stories they were getting about disarray and families torn apart were being fed to them by activist groups?

After all, the organizations involved in planning the "spontaneous" protests all seemed eager to share their successes with the Daily Beast, including about how they were in "constant contact with … lawyers' associations, lawmakers, reporters … ."

The fact that the mainstream press either ignorantly fell for — or were active participants in — what amounts to anti-Trump agitprop calls into question much of the rest of the coverage about these events. How much of what was being reported as fact was actually made up or wildly exaggerated by professional activists?

We learned earlier this week, for example, that a widely reported story about a 75-year old mother who died in Iraq after being barred from re-entering the U.S. was a complete lie made up by Iraq-born Mike Hager, who now lives in Michigan.

An in-house ad on The New York Times' homepage says: "The truth is hard to find." That's true. Especially when supposedly trustworthy news outlets are busy spreading falsehoods.

Do George Soros funded professional protesters really show how Americans feel? If the issue is legitimate, do you really need to plan in advance, and be at the ready for outrage marches? If the views of the left are in the mainstream, how come they need to pay people to riot?

[Deleted]

The hatred for Mr. Soros funding human right organizations is really funny.

When they forget that those human right organizations also get funded by multiple other billionaires and companies. Like the Koch brothers. Like Goldman Sachs.

Only because people fund organizations doesnt mean they are the evil mastermind behind it.

On a side note: Mr. Soros is as left as Bill Gates.

[Celista]

People aren't being paid to protest, stop drinking the Kool-aid. People are self-organizing for protest.

I am in a Facebook group that is organizing for the march for science and I was in a Facebook group that organized the women's march, there were volunteer forms and a lot of communication regarding organizing.

You might have some individuals who have experience with organizing protests (we have people protesting something nearly every week in Portland, which has gone on as long as I've lived here), but they're not being paid.

To answer your question regarding "do you need to organize": yes obviously, especially for large marches. At minimum you need to get a permit.

[Skroe]

My mom, brother and sister-in-law are all paid for GEORGE SOROS?!?!

Good golly good gosh!

[Deleted]

Aren't conspiracy theories banned

[Bathory]

Shit, I was getting paid for protesting? When does my check come in?!

[JohnBrown1917]

Its funny how the left is seen as 1 single group in the US, and its funded by somebody from a center-right(liberal-conservative) party.

[Tijuana]

Aren't conspiracy theories banned

The article is from Investor's Business Daily, not infowars.com.

- - - Updated - - -

Its funny how the left is seen as 1 single group in the US, and its funded by somebody from a center-right(liberal-conservative) party.

You make this point in every single American politics thread. It's pretty stale. One party is to the left of the other, ergo, "the left" from the US perspective. Go bother a Russia thread if you don't like it.

[Kujako]

The article is from Investor's Business Daily, not infowars.com.

It's "commentary", aka a blog that has nothing to do with the site it's hosted on.

[Deleted]

The article is from Investor's Business Daily, not infowars.com.

- - - Updated - - -



You make this point in every single American politics thread. It's pretty stale. One party is to the left of the other, ergo, "the left" from the US perspective. Go bother a Russia thread if you don't like it.

And? It's an opinion piece and a conspiracy theory

[Aggrophobic]

You can get payed to protest?
I get the feeling a lot of protesters would feel cheated if this was true.

[Azadina]

The author of that article has quite a few crazy conspiracy theories on his article history list.

And the OP added one of his own on top of it all.

[Tijuana]

It's "commentary", aka a blog that has nothing to do with the site it's hosted on.

So, in your mind, the editorial page of the NYT has nothing to do with the paper? What? Regardless, the facts are sourced so, whatever. At least this names the source, unlike most of what is on CNN on any given day.

[Kujako]

So, in your mind, the editorial page of the NYT has nothing to do with the paper? What? Regardless, the facts are sourced so, whatever. At least this names the source, unlike most of what is on CNN on any given day.

Yes... the letters to the editor section of the NYT does not contain material that is supported by the publisher. But hey, whatever you feel you need to believe to keep your happy place.

[draynay]

This again? Get the forum shovel and bury this crap.

[Tijuana]

And? It's an opinion piece and a conspiracy theory

It has quotes of people saying this is what they did. That is the part I find interesting. If you don't then, that is your right. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

Yes... the letters to the editor section of the NYT does not contain material that is supported by the publisher. But hey, whatever you feel you need to believe to keep your happy place.

So, you are challenging these quotes as accurate? Feel free to disregard the opinion portions but, unless you have a source that refutes the quotes, your point is pretty lacking.

[Garnier Fructis]

Even if this were true, it doesn't matter.

Trump insulted his way to the Presidency, and hasn't stopped acting like a petulant child. He deserves 4 years of people fighting like hell against him.

[Mad_Murdock]

I don't know that I find the basics of this overly shocking. "We knew Hillary was going ot shake hands and kiss babies, and so we planned to have a huge protest once she did". Even if they paid a base group of protesters $200 to come out to protest I'm not 100% sure I find it overly wrong. Maybe it's a good Strategy. Think of that awkward high school dance where no one is on the dance floor, so they paid 50 people to run out there and start boogieing.

Maybe in some regards, we should thank whoever on the left for doing it. Trump does something stupid, the left gets folks out there protesting, maybe even creating the illusion tens of millions of people where there. That tells the rest of the world, Hey the US isn't really cool with this. So people will just hate Trump and not the rest of us.

[Darkeon]

If there are possibilities of it including the protests that transform into riots, I'd say proper investigation is in order.
The remaining protests, even if trying to be painted as spontaneous for brownie points, they'd merely be scummy at best.

[Sunseeker]

The article is from Investor's Business Daily, not infowars.com.

So? The "article" is a blog.