People replying to you aren't being petty, you carry yourself in a very aggressive way and I don't think you realize it.

You made up a narrative without any evidence to back it up, people corrected you with references, but you ignore them because you've blocked any view that causes your blood pressure to rise.

People are responding to you like this because you present yourself absurdly and then defend it absurdly.

One of the few posters I honestly think is a troll, I'm just not sure if you realize it or not.

The video shows a "black church" filled with white people. So they either went to a mixed church (that leans white) and called it a black church, or they went to a black church and the majority of people who wanted to go hear him speak were white anyways.

So hes either a liar trying to make it look like black people like him, or black people find him so offensive they wouldnt even go to their own church to hear him speak, allowing the space to be filled with white people.

I suppose there is the possibility black people were prevented from going, and white people were purposefully placed into the crowds but im not sure who would gain from that.

There is not a consensus that people are leaving the democratic party.

Also, polls only give you statistics about folk who will actually take a poll or reply to a pollster.

Im not sure if you realized the source you posted has a disclaimer: "[APP NOTE: Like all "Campaign Press Releases" this document was entirely the product of a partisan political campaign. It is archived at the APP as part of the record of campaign communications. The APP has not assessed the accuracy of any claims made here either pro or con.]"

Since this release came from Trump, it shouldn't be used to add validity to Trumps claims about helping African Americans, right?

Why wouldn't you compare like situations? It appears you chose a rather well set-up charging station vs. a poorly setup swapping station.

I didn't picture an oil change when I imagined a battery swap station, I am not sure that should be the default or starting point.

My guess is gun advocates think its a restriction on the 2nd amendment?

So your argument is that you can't possibly imagine a bad consequence of social media, that the studies by scientists showing the negative aspects are "pseudoscience", that they don't actually care about children, and that these politicians are just pushing this message to make a profit.

Did I get it right?

What will you lose if children are warned about the dangers of social media anyways?

I honestly can't figure out what point you are making. I see a lot of buzz-words like anti-poor, racist, private property rights, status quo, etc. but I don't understand how you think this plays out practically. The person you are replying to was asking for real-world examples of the cops defending rich white people in instances they wouldnt support poor non-white people.

I'm not even saying I disagree necessarily, just that you haven't answered the initial question.