I guess I am relying on my eyes and my own common sense to hold my belief that the election was filled with inaccuracies and fraud and dishonesty. I could give you example after example but it would fall on deaf ears.
I am not doing that at all, simply pointing out the differences in boycotting a company that has made a position known versus one that has taken no position either way. Had Home Depot claimed a side then it would seem obvious that the opposition would exert pressure on them, but to make no claim either way and still be targeted by any political side (left or right] makes no sense to me.
So boycotting a corporation that has taken no position on the matter makes no sense. Why must a corporation be targeted for being neutral? Is it now "you're either for us or against us" ?
Pressuring them for what though? Home Depot was silent on the issue, took no side, they were Switzerland, remained neutral, offered no opinion on the matter, and yet a call for boycott was raised. You don't see a difference?
Come on man, even you, deep down in your heart, know that it was an election rife with fraud and dishonesty. To believe otherwise is simply closing your eyes to the facts. I only wish that there was a true insurrection that day, a true overthrow of the corrupt politicians that laugh in the faces of Americans who believe that their votes matter.
If the guy had complied, not struggled, not attempt to flee, this officer would have had no reason to mistake her pistol with her taser because she wouldn't have reached for either.