Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid".
The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.
Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?
Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda.
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.
Frankly I would have expected most R's to vote for the confirmation of R cabinet nominations. One needn't invoke complicated rhetorical scenarios to explain such an action.
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 brought up this situation because it's an example of a "paid protesters" claim being falsely used in other contexts as a reason to ignore actual human interactions.
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.
Uhhh... I'm not sure how to proceed here. I don't intend to upset anyone. My point was that R's will vote for R's. If that weren't the intention of the electorate, they would have elected a D. (Isn't the "two-party system" fun!) I don't why we'd need to invoke a conspiracy theory, even one offered up by the R in question, to understand why an R would vote for an R. That is, don't believe everything that politicians tell you, even (especially?) about their motivations for the actions they take.
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.
The paid protestor story is bait and switch as if to imply no, it's not the for profit corporation doing the pipeline that's in it for the money, it's the protestors - they are the ones in it for the money here!
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.
The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.