J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Kashchei said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Every time I see this thread bumped, I looked forward to seeing what today's looney tune version of Candace is saying.

---

Every time I see the thread bumped, I checked to see if someone is going to make a compelling case against what Candace is saying. Or if it's just going to be ranting, raving, or posting a clip of someone else ranting and raving.

---

Two fallacies in one: Shifting the Burden of Proof and Appeal to Ignorance. Impressive.

---

No, it's just I've heard Candace's side of the story. Some of it sounds crazy. Some of it sounds plausible. What I don't hear is someone making a sound argument against it. Just ranting and raving.

Your reply is insinuating I made an accusation which I did not. Then, you argued against that. Technically, that's called a straw man.

---

What of her rantings is "plausible"?

The bee cult?
The Jews"
The Egyptians?
TPUSA?
Erika Kirk?
Trump?
The X-Men?
Charlie was in love with her?

The only person she hasn't blamed is the person who pulled the trigger.

---

I don't know pick one, and lets discuss and see where it leads

---

You said some of the claims "sound plausible." Which claims are you referring to?

---

He won't answer with any specifics.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Kashchei said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Every time I see this thread bumped, I looked forward to seeing what today's looney tune version of Candace is saying.

---

Every time I see the thread bumped, I checked to see if someone is going to make a compelling case against what Candace is saying. Or if it's just going to be ranting, raving, or posting a clip of someone else ranting and raving.

---

Two fallacies in one: Shifting the Burden of Proof and Appeal to Ignorance. Impressive.

---

No, it's just I've heard Candace's side of the story. Some of it sounds crazy. Some of it sounds plausible. What I don't hear is someone making a sound argument against it. Just ranting and raving.

Your reply is insinuating I made an accusation which I did not. Then, you argued against that. Technically, that's called a straw man.

---

What of her rantings is "plausible"?

The bee cult?
The Jews"
The Egyptians?
TPUSA?
Erika Kirk?
Trump?
The X-Men?
Charlie was in love with her?

The only person she hasn't blamed is the person who pulled the trigger.

---

I don't know pick one, and lets discuss and see where it leads

---

You said some of the claims "sound plausible." Which claims are you referring to?

---

Stand by for "hey what's wrong with asking questions"

Crazy Candace not going to be happy. How long till she again accuses Trump of being "in on it."

Erika Kirk to attend State of the Union speech as Trump’s guesthttps://t.co/LfsY0D5oHG

— WSAZ NewsChannel 3 (@WSAZnews) February 24, 2026

GAC06 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Kashchei said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Every time I see this thread bumped, I looked forward to seeing what today's looney tune version of Candace is saying.

---

Every time I see the thread bumped, I checked to see if someone is going to make a compelling case against what Candace is saying. Or if it's just going to be ranting, raving, or posting a clip of someone else ranting and raving.

---

Two fallacies in one: Shifting the Burden of Proof and Appeal to Ignorance. Impressive.

---

No, it's just I've heard Candace's side of the story. Some of it sounds crazy. Some of it sounds plausible. What I don't hear is someone making a sound argument against it. Just ranting and raving.

Your reply is insinuating I made an accusation which I did not. Then, you argued against that. Technically, that's called a straw man.

---

What of her rantings is "plausible"?

The bee cult?
The Jews"
The Egyptians?
TPUSA?
Erika Kirk?
Trump?
The X-Men?
Charlie was in love with her?

The only person she hasn't blamed is the person who pulled the trigger.

---

I don't know pick one, and lets discuss and see where it leads

---

You said some of the claims "sound plausible." Which claims are you referring to?

---

Stand by for "hey what's wrong with asking questions"

---

You're probably right. I was banking on "I'm not going to do your research for you."

Rapier108 said:

---

Her only source for information is the voices in her own head.

Why don't you tell us which of her claims are true/correct/plausible, or whatever you think they are.

And it is up to her to prove them, not for everyone else to disprove them. So far she has never proven hack *****

If you think she's some kind of prophet or seer and is the only person who knows "the truth" then you need help as much as she does.

---

Right. Why don't you first tell me why you're so fervent. public service?

She has a podcast, and each one has 30 minutes of her producing "receipts" and asking good, sometimes very simple questions. And the prime people and entities in and around the murder, and since the murder, can't produce good answers to simple questions. So I couldn't do all of that justice here, especially for your amusement.

Now get back to name-calling, and I'll get out of your hair.

Rapier108 said:

---

Crazy Candace not going to be happy. How long till she again accuses Trump of being "in on it."

Erika Kirk to attend State of the Union speech as Trump’s guesthttps://t.co/LfsY0D5oHG

— WSAZ NewsChannel 3 (@WSAZnews) February 24, 2026

---

This is what's nuts. I had to have a little talk with a buddy about it. Since he's been right about a couple of conspiracy theories, as we all have, he started to think just about everything was a conspiracy. He thought that Erika continuing life in the public eye and continuing work with TPUSA was strong evidence that she, at the very least, is capitalizing on his deasth and enjoying her newfound fame and power. "She doesn't seem too sad about it" is kind of the gist.

I had to explain to him that TPUSA was Charlie's life's work...something he was insanely passionate about. Something that actually made a dent in politics and how the youth consider them. And that picking up the torch and keeping TPUSA going was likely very important to Erika because she knew how important it was for him.

This is a sane, otherwise rational dude, but he has gone far down a few conspiracy rabbit holes (chem trails being another).

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Her only source for information is the voices in her own head.

Why don't you tell us which of her claims are true/correct/plausible, or whatever you think they are.

And it is up to her to prove them, not for everyone else to disprove them. So far she has never proven hack *****

If you think she's some kind of prophet or seer and is the only person who knows "the truth" then you need help as much as she does.

---

Right. Why don't you first tell me why you're so fervent. public service?

She has a podcast, and each one has 30 minutes of her producing "receipts" and asking good, sometimes very simple questions. And the prime people and entities in and around the murder, and since the murder, can't produce good answers to simple questions. So I couldn't do all of that justice here, especially for your amusement.

Now get back to name-calling, and I'll get out of your hair.

---

Why can't she leave a grieving widow out of it though? You realize how evil and trashy that is right? Let's say she's 90% sure, in her batch** crazy mind, that Erika had him whacked...or was an accessory or something. Does she not consider the possibility that she is wrong, and Erika is NOT happy about Charlie being executed like he was?

At the very least, can you admit that it is very reckless and cold blooded? Even if someone believes Erika put the hit out on him or was involved in some capacity, maybe just keep that to yourself just in case you are wrong? Definitely psychotic behavior to just "let it fly" with these Erika Kirk allegations, not even considering the possibility that she may be completely innocent and grieving and enduring more pain than most people can imagine.

hph6203 said:

---

Her tactic is to do a lot of research into a person, provide a mountain of true facts about their life to demonstrate she's well researched and then throw in some stupid "tips" she received from wholly random anonymous individuals she won't reveal who claim they know that her accusations are true. Marrying the mountain of irrelevant bull**** next to the unsupported claims gives sub-100 IQ people the impression it's well supported when 99% of what she discusses is entirely irrelevant.

---

Just like the Steele Dossier.

He put accurate, but irrelevant facts into it such as Trump wants to build a hotel in Moscow (was not a secret at all), but that gave the media and Democrats cover to claim all of it was true.

Most of them still believe it is.

there's something really wrong with her.

Ive never met a candace fan, but I know she's popular. I dont get it at all. Feels like an OP at this point its so cartoonishly insane.

I used to be a fan of hers, but somewhere along the way she started going BSC. I used to think that maybe she was just over zealous or possibly mislead on certain topics. Now I'm leaning toward her just being an evil person.

@SteveSkojec I have grave news for you:
My German coffee maker gave up the ghost and they no longer sell their product in the US.

We will have a showing at church tomorrow morning, and the burial will be a private affair to allow those of us who were family to mourn.

Candace…

— Fr. Joseph Krupp (@Joeinblack) February 24, 2026

Quote:

---

I have grave news for you:
My German coffee maker gave up the ghost and they no longer sell their product in the US.

We will have a showing at church tomorrow morning, and the burial will be a private affair to allow those of us who were family to mourn.

Candace Owens will soon be running a special about how I murdered the coffee machine because the Jews told me to.

---

PS - This priest is a good follow if you're Catholic.

In case you needed reminding. Ian Carroll & ClownDave Smith are SCUM

As Candace is now going after Erika directly, I want to publicly mention that I have it on good authority that these attacks on Charlie from before his death were coordinated with Candace.

In fact, you will notice most of Owens’ biggest supporters pretending that this is all… https://t.co/3veCDdy8is

— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 24, 2026

Farmer_J said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Well, that's exactly what you have asked us to do.

---

No, I didn't. I just said i've been waiting for someone to make a case against her allegations. Instead, I got ten replies name calling and saying they don't have to. lol.

Do you understand the difference between wanting to hear an opposing argument and making an accusation?

---

A serious person doesn't make accusations without releasing the supporting evidence. I can make all kinds of ridiculous claims that "seem logical" that are completely false. The hallmark of a good liar is that they take a kernel of truth to present themselves as credible and then surround that truth with falsehoods that are "logical."

Candace Owen's has done this repeatedly on all sort of topics like Kirk, the Jews, the moon landing, etc. She presents little to no evidence and spins enough of a web to where morons will believe it because she's "asking the right questions." It's the exact same thing Tucker does with his Israel schtick.

Be better. There are real conspiracies in the world, but that doesn't mean every conspiracy theory is worthy of belief. If she were an honest person, she would've conducted a complete investigation and then laid out her allegations all at once. Not put together this strung out hit campaign with "sources" and half truths.

You don't accumulate views or clicks if you do that.

The most extreme and insane views get most of the attention, but I'm sure it's different this time.

Keep up the fight Farmer_J!! Candace is sure to accept that date request now. Don't give up!

Whoever said she's surpassed Kanye levels was right.

So you guys know how this thing works. A Zionist is currently writing Trump’s speech. That speech will be pre-circulated amongst an orbit of Zionist-hive journalists so they can be prepared to publish their headlines which are bound to read:

“TRUMP ISSUES STUNNING DEFENSE OF…

— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) February 24, 2026

Quote:

---

So you guys know how this thing works. A Zionist is currently writing Trump's speech. That speech will be pre-circulated amongst an orbit of Zionist-hive journalists so they can be prepared to publish their headlines which are bound to read:

"TRUMP ISSUES STUNNING DEFENSE OF ERIKA KIRK" -Daily Wire, definitely.

"TRUMP CALLS ATTACKS ON ERIKA KIRK DEMONIC" -New York Post, probably

Everything in D.C is fake, gay, terribly boring and predictable.

---

"But, but how is that anti-semitic?"

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I used to be a fan of hers, but somewhere along the way she started going BSC. I used to think that maybe she was just over zealous or possibly mislead on certain topics. Now I'm leaning toward her just being an evil person.

---

Why is she bat **** or an evil person? Because she has a podcast? Or something else? Whose life has she destroyed being an evil person?
Some of you get all up in a tizzy over someone who is so BSC and irrelevant.

Phog06 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I used to be a fan of hers, but somewhere along the way she started going BSC. I used to think that maybe she was just over zealous or possibly mislead on certain topics. Now I'm leaning toward her just being an evil person.

---

Why is she bat **** or an evil person? Because she has a podcast? Or something else? Whose life has she destroyed being an evil person?
Some of you get all up in a tizzy over someone who is so BSC and irrelevant.

---

What Rapier said plus she's not "irrelevant". She's used Charlie Kirk's death to at one point surpass even Joe Rogan's podcast at #1 most listened to in the world.

Time will tell what kind of effect she has on actual elections as she unites the pro-Candace/Dave Smith/Nick Fuentes/anti Isreal/suddenly anti-Trump supporters of the world (hell I'll even throw in Tucker to be fair as much as I've always loved him).

She's not doing the Conservative movement any favors with her sidewhow antics. TPUSA is and was the best movement at galvanizing young voters that have a tendency to be brainwashed by media and their professors.

She is trying to tear the organization apart for selfish, financial reasons because she is psychotic and butthurt.

She's not some sort of intellecual like Ben Shapiro said today. Her hatred of Israel is right there in plain sight as well.

At least we agree she is BSC so I'll give you that. I used to like her until she went full ****** and we all know you never go that.

Phog06 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I used to be a fan of hers, but somewhere along the way she started going BSC. I used to think that maybe she was just over zealous or possibly mislead on certain topics. Now I'm leaning toward her just being an evil person.

---

Why is she bat **** or an evil person? Because she has a podcast? Or something else? Whose life has she destroyed being an evil person?
Some of you get all up in a tizzy over someone who is so BSC and irrelevant.

---

WTH, how did Candace get an Agtag?

hph6203 said:

---

Her tactic is to do a lot of research into a person, provide a mountain of true facts about their life to demonstrate she's well researched and then throw in some stupid "tips" she received from wholly random anonymous individuals she won't reveal who claim they know that her accusations are true. Marrying the mountain of irrelevant bull**** next to the unsupported claims gives sub-100 IQ people the impression it's well supported when 99% of what she discusses is entirely irrelevant.

---

SHE DOES NO RESEARCH.

she is a literal uneducated hick.

she has a team of staffers in Nashville (who have been outed now) who produce her shows and do her makeup and correct every single episode where she mispronounces common English words.


then her "sources" are some anonymous emails.

anyone who believes her- is a moron.

Phog06 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I used to be a fan of hers, but somewhere along the way she started going BSC. I used to think that maybe she was just over zealous or possibly mislead on certain topics. Now I'm leaning toward her just being an evil person.

---

Why is she bat **** or an evil person? Because she has a podcast? Or something else? Whose life has she destroyed being an evil person?
Some of you get all up in a tizzy over someone who is so BSC and irrelevant.

---

it is common decency not to attack a new widow and the mother of two young children, whose mother is also dying right now of cancer.

do elucidate us though- exactly WHAT evidence has ever pointed to Erika Kirk murdering her husband?

when no one has had more of a motive to kill Charlie than- Candace Owens.

Phog06 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I used to be a fan of hers, but somewhere along the way she started going BSC. I used to think that maybe she was just over zealous or possibly mislead on certain topics. Now I'm leaning toward her just being an evil person.

---

Why is she bat **** or an evil person? Because she has a podcast? Or something else? Whose life has she destroyed being an evil person?
Some of you get all up in a tizzy over someone who is so BSC and irrelevant.

---

She is bullying a widow of a recently deceased person, and accusing her of either (a) playing a role in her husband's death, or (b) being happy about his death and capitalizing on it...painting Erika as some diabolical power hungry mad-woman. This is below even most of the trashy leftists that we demonize on here...lowest of low behavior. I would categorize it as evil, although, is it evil if Candace truly is going through a long drawn out mental episode or meltdown?

There are only two options imo...evil or psycho (maybe postpartum psychosis?). Any sane, or non-evil person, leaves a grieving widow and mother of surviving children who lost their dad out of it completely.

Im Gipper said:

---

In case you needed reminding. Ian Carroll & ClownDave Smith are SCUM

As Candace is now going after Erika directly, I want to publicly mention that I have it on good authority that these attacks on Charlie from before his death were coordinated with Candace.

In fact, you will notice most of Owens’ biggest supporters pretending that this is all… https://t.co/3veCDdy8is

— AG (@AGHamilton29) February 24, 2026

---

I am not super proficient on Twitter, but what did Dave Smith do here? Looks like he asked an innocuous question. For the record, I am not a fan of his takes on Israel/palestine, just curious what he did here?

astros4545 said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Bongino teeing off on her as well:

🚨 HOLY SMOKES. Dan Bongino goes ABSOLUTELY HAYWIRE on Candace Owens and others for continuing to target Erika Kirk

"You deserve to feel the flames of hell on every inch of your body."

"We don't want you. Nobody wants you. You are the spawn of Satan."

"Absolute F*CKING… pic.twitter.com/MLtADcjPai

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) February 24, 2026

---

Dan Bongino- the new propaganda machine
He has zero credibility for making himself a moron over the JE events. Anytime you forget just play a collection of all his blow hard rants about about what needs to be done and what he would do about lots of things- then just watch what the guy has become. It's sad.

---

So he's wrong about Candace? Got it

---

Bongino ranted and raved about what is wrong with the FBI, Secret Service, the DOJ, the JE files, etc etc. Yet after much time was spent getting him into a position to do things he became no different than the exact BS he himself ranted about.

Now he's going to rant about another podcaster ? Yet all the stuff he used to rant about and did nothing for is fine with him - but his rage is over this ?

He is a blowhard that does what most republicans do best - rant about all the problems but then when given a chance to make a difference……. Well they become what they ranted about.

So he's looking for low hanging fruit to boost his ratings and this fits.

GAC06 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Kashchei said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Every time I see this thread bumped, I looked forward to seeing what today's looney tune version of Candace is saying.

---

Every time I see the thread bumped, I checked to see if someone is going to make a compelling case against what Candace is saying. Or if it's just going to be ranting, raving, or posting a clip of someone else ranting and raving.

---

Two fallacies in one: Shifting the Burden of Proof and Appeal to Ignorance. Impressive.

---

No, it's just I've heard Candace's side of the story. Some of it sounds crazy. Some of it sounds plausible. What I don't hear is someone making a sound argument against it. Just ranting and raving.

Your reply is insinuating I made an accusation which I did not. Then, you argued against that. Technically, that's called a straw man.

---

What of her rantings is "plausible"?

The bee cult?
The Jews"
The Egyptians?
TPUSA?
Erika Kirk?
Trump?
The X-Men?
Charlie was in love with her?

The only person she hasn't blamed is the person who pulled the trigger.

---

I don't know pick one, and lets discuss and see where it leads

---

You said some of the claims "sound plausible." Which claims are you referring to?

---

Stand by for "hey what's wrong with asking questions"

---

Update, looks like we just got the "make absurd statement and then disappear when you're asked to back it up" version of Candace supporters.

Phog06 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

I used to be a fan of hers, but somewhere along the way she started going BSC. I used to think that maybe she was just over zealous or possibly mislead on certain topics. Now I'm leaning toward her just being an evil person.

---

Why is she bat **** or an evil person? Because she has a podcast? Or something else? Whose life has she destroyed being an evil person?
Some of you get all up in a tizzy over someone who is so BSC and irrelevant.

---

She is not mentally well and suggesting otherwise is ignoring all she has said.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Kashchei said:

---

Farmer_J said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Every time I see this thread bumped, I looked forward to seeing what today's looney tune version of Candace is saying.

---

Every time I see the thread bumped, I checked to see if someone is going to make a compelling case against what Candace is saying. Or if it's just going to be ranting, raving, or posting a clip of someone else ranting and raving.

---

Two fallacies in one: Shifting the Burden of Proof and Appeal to Ignorance. Impressive.

---

No, it's just I've heard Candace's side of the story. Some of it sounds crazy. Some of it sounds plausible. What I don't hear is someone making a sound argument against it. Just ranting and raving.

Your reply is insinuating I made an accusation which I did not. Then, you argued against that. Technically, that's called a straw man.

---

What of her rantings is "plausible"?

The bee cult?
The Jews"
The Egyptians?
TPUSA?
Erika Kirk?
Trump?
The X-Men?
Charlie was in love with her?

The only person she hasn't blamed is the person who pulled the trigger.

---

I don't know pick one, and lets discuss and see where it leads

---

You said some of the claims "sound plausible." Which claims are you referring to?

---

Stand by for "hey what's wrong with asking questions"

---

Update, looks like we just got the "make absurd statement and then disappear when you're asked to back it up" version of Candace supporters.

---

They always disappear after making the same posts each time.

"She's just asking questions."
"She makes some good/interesting/plausible points."
"She just wants to get to the truth."

Nothing. He's just asking what implicates Israel/Jews in Charlie's death, not to make the claim, but critique the accusation. He's not a crazed conspiracy theorist like Candace and Ian Carroll he's just an anti-war, anti-conflict, non-interventionist to the point of naivety/delusion about the reality of people and the world. He's under the false impression that the Middle East is the way it is due to western intervention and if left alone it wouldn't be quite so ****ty and hostile.

I'm happy to address the issues Candace Owen's points out:

Erika Kirk had nothing to do with the assassination of her husband.

Erika Kirk doesn't engage in human trafficking.

Erika Kirk isn't being followed by Egyptian planes.

TPUSA isn't complicit in a coverup of Charlie… https://t.co/UpulNSj4Hj

— Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) February 25, 2026

Quote:

---

She is not mentally well and suggesting otherwise is ignoring all she has said.

---

I don't think she is mentally unwell at all. She knows exactly what she it doing. Says a bunch of crazy stuff for clicks.

Those that lap up her nonsense on the other hand.....nuttier than squirrel dung.