Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours.
For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?
I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.
The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.
An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education.
Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint should be challenged when false because these claims spread and make it easier to normalize this kind of democracy eroding response from representatives.
Some reportage of confirmation hearings might have left the impression that this particular nominee is some unhappy amalgamation of Satan, Brandine Spuckler, and Richie Rich as interpreted by Robot Chicken. That seems pretty unlikely! Probably this is a simple political disagreement, filtered through whatever media process maximizes those clicks and eyeballs.
I think you are trying to invalidate the notion that there can be a reason for people to disagree other than media manipulation.
I disagree with that argument and I will not attempt to engage with you on the basis of fact until and unless you walk it back.
Perhaps mistakenly, I anticipated an objection to this simple scenario along the lines of "this person is really extra super bad, so normal Congress-critters even from the same party would never have voted for her without being fooled by evil memes, and that's why we should believe that this Congress-critter really does believe in the evil meme of the Soros Army". If you wouldn't have objected thus, I apologize for making an uncharitable assumption.
But back to the point - I brought it up not to argue that this particular appointee was any better or worse than some standard, but to support the notion that it is correct to object to propaganda that attempts to discredit voices due to false accusations that those voices are only the voices of paid protesters with a corrupt financial agenda rather than the opinions of actual people who formed those opinions based on their real-life experiences. Deploying this strategy falsely to discredit legitimate opposition groups is inherently anti-democratic, corrupt, polarizing, and very dangerous (in my opinion).
You responded to this expression with a claim that I interpreted as expressing that the only possible disagreement about a particular appointee is a product of partisan media manipulation and therefore its fair game to insinuate that any opposition voices are entirely partisan in nature. Within the context of the thread, I understand you attempted to establish that point in order to suggest that it is 'OK' to spread false caricatures of the opposition voices to the portion of the electorate that is prepared to receive that message regardless of veracity.
I understand the desire to be jaded about politics -- I typically try to ignore as much of politics as I can and tend to think that's the best possible strategy for me. It appears to me though that you take your cynicism further by asserting that there is basically no role in the political process for decision making beyond the level of team sports. All disagreement between members of A and members of B is inherently only about media manipulation rather than the possibility that such disagreement could express something rational about the real world.
I think that world-view (as understood by me) is inherently anti-rational-discourse and is worth disagreeing with.
One side is trying to make billions and someone is falsely claiming the other side is trying to make hundreds and That becomes the story. What immoral, outrageous, reprehensible nonsense.
Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours.
Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.
That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing.
The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
Frankly, when you know people and have relatives on both sides and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar really doesn't make me want to bother anymore. People forget the problems we are having with rail transport and one of the other tribes being dragged out of poverty because of the oil. I still love my relatives doing the protesting, but they would have been better served if the tribe had bother to do its paperwork years ago.
I don't know about those other things.
I'm sorry, but that's what happens when you make accusations without any evidence. If your relatives are telling you that George Soros is funding protests, ask them why they think that. Or don't - I know what relatives can be like - but don't blankly repeat their claims when you know you do not possess any evidence to back up the assertion.
So how exactly does one get paid for attending a protest? What's the going rate? Is there a bonus for being shown on television or getting arrested? Will any chant phrases be provided beforehand, or are they ad hoc? Will they get a 1099, or is it cash under the table?
If the hypothesis is that some protesters are paid, wouldn't it be prudent to at least test that hypothesis by trying to get paid for doing one yourself?
[Edit:] I have seen multiple instances, from multiple sources, where people are claiming that protesters are literally being paid with actual dollars--not in warm fuzzies or in social justice scrip, but actual spendable cash. They will respond to a crowd photo by saying, "That must have cost [Soros|The Koch Bros.|Murdoch|Redstone|The Illuminati] a few million." I am aware that organizing events costs money, but they seem to think that every individual in the photograph actually got a check for showing up.
I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side of good, profiting from pushing then riding the market into a better local optimum.
And so tossing out "Soros" just triggers my redgroupthink detector - his funding itself wouldn't invalidate the protest (if this were the case, then neither side has any moral authority), but the actual cui bono could.
So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.
Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view.
In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.