Batman Slapping Robin

"Come together" you say?

Huh? We're still bantering, right?

Except that leftist always act in ideological lockstep just as soon as the DNC gives them their marching orders as filtered through their fanatically leftist-loyal media outlets.

Also come to find out 'paid protesters' aren't the best of messengers. Look at the Civil Rights Movement. People who were involved in that BELIEVED in the cause. Heck, even the anti-war protesters of the 1960s BELIEVED in their cause. People who are paid to protest are just acting the part of caring either way.

I'll bet if our side offered these paid protestors a bigger chunk of change to march/protest for gun rights or pro-life causes, they'd do it in a heartbeat. They're like mercenaries who work for whichever side pays the most regardless of whether the hiring side is morally right or wrong as long the checks clear.

I agree with you. The 1960s era hippies wanted to end the war in Vietnam BEFORE they got stuffed into a uniform then got sent over there. They had personal m-o-t-i-v-a-t-i-o-n. Today's leftists are almost all warhawks because they KNOW that they personally are not going to have to go overseas to fight and maybe be mutilated or killed. To them it's just a game that they have got no skin-in.

Here's a link to an article by investigative journalists confirming the existence and presence of "compensated activists". Followed by a video confession of a paid protestor.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/compensated-activist-majority-protesters-paid/
https://culturacolectiva.com/en/history/tiktoker-claimed-paid-protest-los-angeles/

I didn't say paid protesters don't exist genius. You're trying too hard to compensate for the fact that the majority of MAGA is just internet trollbots that can't do anything IRL

Thank you for the compliment, but I didn't compensate anything. I provided links of evidence that point to the opposite of the conclusion you came to about nobody being paid to protest. I'm just pointing out how the evidence isn't on your side by providing the evidence that exists.

No, what you did was insinuate that it's a leftist event that protests such as the one that happened were due to paid protesters and this is factually not the truth. The fact that paid protesters exist does not invalidate that stance in the slightest and it's fully dishonest to pretend that it does. Thanks for listening though.

You're welcome. You just proved to me you didn't even bother looking at even the first link I sent over. If you expect people to listen to you then you have no right to be a hypocrite about listening.

I didn't. I have zero motivation to listen to pedo-apologists but thanks for sharing.

You're welcome. I'm always happy to share evidence even if the person I'm talking too refuses to look at it because she's worried it will alter her point of view. I can't force anybody to be honest with themselves or do their due0diligence of gathering information BEFORE they make judgments. I don't have that much hope for the left in the first place. But, I've provided you the evidence so it's up to you to make the right decision by analyzing it.

Both of your links are only individual people making claims with no verifiable statistics to back them. The first one doesn't even use their real name but uses a pseudonym. Your second one was fact check by FactCheck.org and Politifact and it was found that the craigslist posting was a prank made by podcast hosts as a plot for the episode. There isn't a single shred of hard evidence for either of the articles. If you like, I'll go write a substack with AI right now about how there's no such thing as paid protesters and I know this from the first person perspective as a protester and I'll use a pseudonym too so you can think I was doing it to "protect" myself. Does that help?

How am I lying when I'm the one that came with evidence and you admitted to lying about even reading them?

What you came with is not in any reasonable community called "evidence" - educate yourself first before speaking to the adults

I've actually provided you with more than a single data point. I provided you with two separate journalists investigations into paid protestors and the data that they've already collected which directly contradicts your claims that they don't exist. You rejected it because it would force you to change your opinion.

No you didn't. I lied to you. I did read your trash articles but thanks for taking this time to repeatedly lie so it's in a nice long chain.

So you're response is "I don't trust the journalists who wrote the articles and gathered the data you presented to me, instead you should not trust them - you should trust me and what I an provide with AI which I will be the one prompting and have tailored to my personality"? Are you brain dead or do you literally just think that I'm stupid?

Well those "journalists" didn't gather any data, so that's why I don't trust their opinions.

I don't care if you think I'm stupid because I've seen what the Left calls "intelligent". I also think that you are demonstrating a level of ideology possession that has become too common on the left to the point that you are now rejecting evidence by the very mainstream media that is on your side when it clashes with what you want to believe is true.

Pick any actual proven data point form anything you've linked that isn't just the opinion of some unverified person. I can wait.

Lol sure. Okay.

Oh, I didn't realize I was speaking to an adult. I'm so sorry, sir. Please don't sh00t me in the neck.

Give me any single data point from one of the articles bud. Any single one that isn't an opinion from some third party. Nobody is threatening to do anything to you personally but if you feel that way it's a reflection on you.

I mean, this is true of anyone who adheres to a party. This isn't "leftist" as much as it is "democrat, republican, and liberal" party affiliation behavior. You'll also notice that, despite the statistical probability of Trump having the 10% drop down rate exclusive to himself in the election across 6 swing states (which he did have) being so low that it is statistically equivalent to winning the Powerball 29 times consecutively, the focus is the "epstein files." Like, yeah, that does matter but let's be honest - they have had the files for 10 months to themselves. We aren't going to ever see them in any sort of honest fashion anymore and Democrats know this. They know the files have spent too long in the hands of pedos for anything they do release to be trustworthy and they will have obviously scrubbed Trump from the list. That said, Clinton is almost certainly on it too.

What is much more prevalent IMHO is that the chances Trump won without someone or something influencing every swing state in his favor is the same as winning the powerball 29 times back to back without cheating. I can do the math for you through a proper standard deviation and Z-Score plot if you like but suffice to say - those are the odds. The odds Trump did not cheat are the same that you win the powerball 29 times in a row without cheating. That's definitively a bigger bullet IMHO and it's backable by raw data and mathematics rather than "lemme see them files, Donny."

All of this to say that your point has validity but it's misdirected. It's not the "leftists" doing this. It's established parties doing it.