You mean the social media arm of BRCC, headed by two democrats, put out a statement quickly? A tepid statement, not condemning Rittenhouse, but saying they 'don't want to profit from tragedy?' What 'strong' disavowal? That is as tepid as tepid can be. They just said they don't get involved in legal advocacy one way or the other.
Meanwhile, they keep working with Blaze Media, whose picture started everything? Sounds like damage control doublespeak. Like I said, I don't shop BRCC, but I don't get the hatred.
If they were that opposed, why would they keep working with Blaze Media, who posted the picture that started the backlash? If they were 'strongly' opposed to Rittenhouse, where is it?
This will be the last I say on this because, frankly, I'm not interested, and think it's stupid. But I'm gonna make a bet. You probably rushed to read the articles condemnign BRCC about Rittenhouse from various conservative sites. You then believed everything the NYT said without thinking deeper into it. Am I right?
I'm gonna make a prediction. I'm gonna predict:
1.) You never actually read the statement put out by BRCC. Didn't know they never condemned Rittenhouse, just said they don't get involved in active legal disputes.
2.) Didn't know they kept working with Blaze, even though their picture likely cost them a lot of money.
3.) Assumed everything the blogs said about BRCC was right.
4.) Assumed everything the lying NYT said about BRCC was right.
5.) Didn't check and see that only three people(an editor, a social media woman, and an IT guy) donated to Dems, and everyone else in the company that donated did so to Republicans.
6.) Believed that the two(actually three, but one donated all of $10) low level people that donated were the heads of the company.
How close to right am I? Gell Mann Amnesia. I'm not gonna talk anymore about this, not worth the blood pressure. But with friends and allies like some of the people on this thread, who needs enemies?