Yeah...I got the reference.  It's just not really related and seems you're just interested in getting random stuff off your chest.

My point seems pretty clear in my 1st response.  

EDIT: And I'm fine with calling it quits if the response chain doesn't interest you.  We're kinda jumping off point of the thread anyways.

*Insert politician* knew that police were beating up and arresting peaceful protesters. 
That doesn't mean it's ok for someone to say "Republicans support police brutality and criminals".

Fist of all, being granted bail means the release of arrestees who have been deemed not to be a significant risk to public safety. Secondly, you go through an application process that most likely prioritizes people arrested for picking up trash and minding their own business than someone arrested for setting a car on fire.

After the unbelievable amount of footage that emerged of police misconduct and questionable arrests at a time when they knew the world was watching and they needed to be on their best behavior, there's ample reason to believe that many people were wrongfully arrested at these events. So likewise you can't just throw everyone else under the bus because of the ones that may have misbehaved.
Either way, bail is part of the justice system in America where people are 'innocent until proven guilty'. But I guess that doesn't apply to poor people.

Depicting Democrats as supporting of criminals or riots because a politician supports raising bail to people who can't afford it and have yet to be proven guilty in events where people were known to be wrongfully arrested is not an honest framing, even if it was just about her. And it wasn't. It was a generalization about a group.

If people can't discuss things without making outlandish generalizations like that, then just don't

There's nothing separate about police misconduct during the BLM protests. Minnesota is no exception. Even when there's no protest, let alone riot.

In Minneapolis, Minnesota, Dan Rojas was arrested on the morning of 27 May. Though there were no protests occurring at the time, Rojas had decided to clean up fragments of rubber bullets, teargas and frag canisters on the public sidewalk in his neighborhood when six police officers confronted him and arrested him.  

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=246869006748233

“They put me in handcuffs, took my property off of me, and they shoved a local reporter out of the way. They put me in a squad car and arrested me for rioting at 10.30 in the morning, the day after a peaceful protest,” said Rojas, who was not released until over 48 hours later. “At the end of it no charges were filed, everything was dropped and I was never told the probable cause they had to arrest me.” 

Seemingly arrested for rioting, when there was no protest, while picking up trash.

There were tons and tons and tons of reports of people getting arrested as a scare tactic. On your way home? Too bad, get in this unmarked black van.

That's not whataboutism. That would be excusing the behavior of A by pointing at B.
I already told you what I thought of your examples, without mentioning B.

I brought up those examples to demonstrate why it's not ok to make these flamebait generalizations of either party.

The reason people point out that the protests are mostly peaceful is because some people, including some users here, are keen on conflating the peaceful protesters with the violent ones. And because some news outlets chose to focus almost entirely on the riots, instead of the peaceful protests.

That is something to be worried about. But that doesn't mean people aren't also worried about the communities that were hit. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Huh?

"Schmidt announced Tuesday that his office will decline to prosecute cases related to the protests that do not involve violence, theft, or deliberate property damage."

How is that controversial? What kind of riot without violence, theft or deliberate property damage do you want people arrested for?
The second story doesn't mention the details behind the decision, and the one link it provides leads to 'Access denied'.
I'm guessing the third is more of the same, but it doesn't really matter, because they don't represent 'Democrats' the way Melbye and Eva depicted it.

About as related as support for communism, riots and criminals being attributed to a group is to the new supreme court pick.

For the people already involved here.
We know this is often ignored across many threads though.
We're looking into revising the rules and guidelines to match all the new toxic ways people find to rile up others and waste their time. Stay tuned.

I have just been reminded why I don't read chat boards about politics on the internet.
Also Mitch is hypocritical, as he said
"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."
But of course that was when a democrat was in office, heaven forbid me not use my own rule 6 weeks before the election.

I couldn't give a shit who wins the election, but the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell really pisses me off.

Also on the bail thing, you are not a criminal until you plead guilty or are found guilty in a court of law. If you are in jail chances are you are awaiting trial, and therefore are not yet a criminal (obviously if you commited a crime prior then you are a criminal)

There is a lot of praise for this individual but I am very leery of such a fundamentalist religious person heading up the SCOTUS.

Then again, Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome project and by all accounts did a fantastic job in his role. If she can compartmentalize her faith, I think she can effectively do her job which she will be sworn to do.

It's less bothersome that she is a devoutly religious person than it is that she is being rushed through the process as swiftly as possible.

0:00-2:27

0:00-3:11 (1:14-1:45 for just Biden's flip flop compared to above)

They're all flip floppers at some point, no matter what side.

Anti-discrimination (the cases you mentioned) is a majoritarian position, so I don't see how you think it is naiive. The Supreme Court is far more conservative than Congress anyway, so my argument doesn't depend on these governments only favoring outcomes I support, but favoring outcomes I support more often than the Supreme Court. 

The decision that had a link to the explanation stated that it was only for situations without violence, theft or deliberate property damage. And you didn't explain what kind of riot you want people prosecuted for that doesn't involve these. Bail is only granted to those who are deemed to not be a risk to society. And not everyone applying is going to get their bail paid for. And people still have to go to court in cases where they are prosecuted.

What law? If it doesn't involve violence, theft or deliberate property damage, then what law regarding riots are you so concerned about?

Police making faulty arrests and committing acts of brutality is very relevant to this subject. And I'm not alleging. They are doing wrong, on camera.
I don't know who is setting up this environment where 'lawlessness reigns and supports riots'. But it's certainly not ok to make that a sweeping generalization about a party.

Just because it's not something you're meant to argue doesn't make it a distraction.
They're examples of other statements in a similar vein that are not ok to make.
And some people need examples to understand the situation.

I was referring to Melbye and Eva's comments.
Although your "setting up an environment where lawlessness reigns is very much supporting riots" remark would apply as well.

You're right, because no one would bother calling it a mostly violent event in the first place. The reason right wingers are focusing on the minority that initiate violence is because that's how they try to discredit the ones who are there being peaceful, and distract from the ongoing police brutality, which was the main purpose of the protests to begin with.

With KKK, you don't need a handful of actively violent ones to discredit the rest. They're all bad. That's what you'd be hearing if the event you described transpired.

I don't give people a pass if they misbehave.
And people who protest peacefully should not be conflated with the violent ones.

I literally gave you some examples of statements the other side may say in a similar fashion that would not be ok.
You know, the ones you called 'distractions'.
But your accusing staff of being dishonest regarding decisions you know know little to nothing about, before they've even been made, is duly noted.

We have enough information about what you guys consider "supporting riots, communism, etc" now.
That was the main purpose of my questions.

Like I said, we have enough information now.

We can go back and forth on these points for all eternity, I'm sure. That wasn't the point.

What's disturbing is your never ending tendency to resort to unprovoked personal attacks, inflammatory generalizations and exaggerations, and attacks on staff.

If you have any further complaints about staff decisions (before they have even been made at that) then you can forward them to any moderator via PM.

Moving on.