The vague and open ended statements are the things they agree with. That's how conspiracy theories work. If you get too specific they can be easily refuted, so vagueness is a powerful tool.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Avoiding court isn't an awful idea, "guilty" or "innocent".

---

In most cases, I would agree...but this one?

Candace is claiming things that would make it one of the bigger conspiracy theories of our time.

I believe she actually said she wanted to go to court to prove this?

Suddenly she's doing everything she can to avoid it?

Almost like she knows her grift is ending on this front and running away.

to believe Candace you have to believe that a 22 year old furry trans loving kid would rather remain 100% silent and get railroaded with life in prison or the death penalty than spill his guts about being a paid hit man from Erika Kirk.

Come on.

Maybe he's a deep cover Jewish French foreign legion hitman. It's plausible and I'm just asking questions.

hph6203 said:

---

The vague and open ended statements are the things they agree with. That's how conspiracy theories work. If you get too specific they can be easily refuted, so vagueness is a powerful tool.

---

I don't think Candace has been challenged on the things she's laid out as facts. Like the pressure Charlie was receiving from certain donors regarding political views, and the stances of tpusa in the context of the events in gaza. Candace produced coms from Charlie.

Some insiders have informally acknowledged authenticity
At least one spokesperson close to Charlie Kirk's organization (Turning Point USA) said the underlying WhatsApp messages themselves were "authentic" and consistent with other known communications, though contextual interpretation was disputed. That kind of statement from a party with access to the actual messages is more meaningful than screenshot-level analysis, but it's not a formal forensic report.
Forensic review isn't happening because the matter isn't a formal dispute

In regards to Erika. Candace has noted that E has a lot of revealing social media and twittering, and interesting connections in her background and upbringing. I didn't know about E's old boyfriends, or time in Romania, romanian angels, or the schools she attended, or the EMP documentary, or her father figures.
And E's value statements in her interview with Bari Weiss for example vs her past conduct and posts on social media.

Anyway, Candace hasn't been effectively challenged or debated. only attacked. but that's how thought-stopping attacks work. They just don't work as well as they used to.

I have zero doubt Jewish donors asked Charlie to cut ties with Tucker Carlson and threatened removing donations if that didn't occur. So what? A person with money used it to push their worldview through a platform that pushes a worldview, and when that platform stopped pushing their worldview or provided opportunity for a counter message they decided they didn't want to fund it anymore? Shocking revelation. If TPUSA put Blaire White on stage and Matt Walsh decided he would no longer support TPUSA, because they promoted transgender ideology as a result, would Matt Walsh be a suspect in Charlie Kirk's death? Or is he just adhering to his ideology? ****** stuff.

I'm not watching her dumb bull***** Be specific about what posts she's made that give you pause? What relevance are her old boyfriends? What is relevant about Romania? Is it actual factual? Know who else has ties to Romania? Candace's husband. Through his friend Andrew Tate. Who has been credibly charged with sex trafficking (you know, openly discussing his manipulation tactics to get women to post sexual content online for his own profit). Still a buddy of Candace.

Prediction: Nothing particularly relevant is going to come out of this. Certainly nothing as relevant as Candace Owens' public college blog (no digging or doxxing necessary) where she professed support for the LGBTQ movement, criticized the Tea Party, claimed monogamy isn't natural, proudly proclaimed her one night stands, and discussed how she thinks cheating is sexy all within a year of her conservative heel turn. Nor that she was arrested for harassment when she was in high school (shocking).

The impetus of her heel turn? She made a website designed to doxx people called Social Autopsy that was met with criticism from leftist and conservatives, but the leftists had a larger megaphone. Her entire conservative run is an attention seeking endeavor and a revenge tour, not an actual worldview. It's why a significant portion of her public postings are now in the vein of what she started with, revealing private information about people for revenge.

She has always been this much of a *****. What changed in the last couple of years is a lack of oversight in the extent to which she was allowed to behave this way. She rose to "conservative" prominence (after being a leftist 6 months prior), was picked up by Turning Point within a month of branding herself "Red Pill Black" and had been attached to a major conservative platform pushing her content, from TPUSA to PragerU to DW to independent.

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

The vague and open ended statements are the things they agree with. That's how conspiracy theories work. If you get too specific they can be easily refuted, so vagueness is a powerful tool.

---

I don't think Candace has been challenged on the things she's laid out as facts. Like the pressure Charlie was receiving from certain donors regarding political views, and the stances of tpusa in the context of the events in gaza. Candace produced coms from Charlie.

Some insiders have informally acknowledged authenticity
At least one spokesperson close to Charlie Kirk's organization (Turning Point USA) said the underlying WhatsApp messages themselves were "authentic" and consistent with other known communications, though contextual interpretation was disputed. That kind of statement from a party with access to the actual messages is more meaningful than screenshot-level analysis, but it's not a formal forensic report.
Forensic review isn't happening because the matter isn't a formal dispute

In regards to Erika. Candace has noted that E has a lot of revealing social media and twittering, and interesting connections in her background and upbringing. I didn't know about E's old boyfriends, or time in Romania, romanian angels, or the schools she attended, or the EMP documentary, or her father figures.
And E's value statements in her interview with Bari Weiss for example vs her past conduct and posts on social media.

Anyway, Candace hasn't been effectively challenged or debated. only attacked. but that's how thought-stopping attacks work. They just don't work as well as they used to.

---

So she's just digging up other things about Erika that are readily available to everyone and passing it off as some kind of gotcha?

If someone said "the sky is blue," then immediately followed it with "lizard people are about to come out of the sewers and take over the world" would you expect people to take the second statement seriously and feel like it should be debated? There no reason to take anything she says seriously because her theories are verifiably insane.

hph6203 said:

---

I have zero doubt Jewish donors asked Charlie to cut ties Tucker Carlson and threatened removing donations if that didn't occur. So what? A person with money used it to push their worldview through a platform that pushes a worldview, and when that platform stopped pushing their worldview or provided opportunity for a counter message they decided they didn't want to fund it anymore? Shocking revelation. If TPUSA put Blaire White on stage and Matt Walsh decided he would no longer support TPUSA, because they promoted transgender ideology as a result, would Matt Walsh be a suspect in Charlie Kirk's death? Or is he just adhering to his ideology? ****** stuff.

I'm not watching her dumb bull***** Be specific about what posts she's made that give you pause? What relevance are her old boyfriends? What is relevant about Romania? Is it actual factual? Know who else has ties to Romania? Candace's husband. Through his friend Andrew Tate. Who has been credibly charged with sex trafficking (you know, openly discussing his manipulation tactics to get women to post sexual content online for his own profit). Still a buddy of Candace.

Prediction: Nothing particularly relevant is going to come out of this. Certainly nothing as relevant as Candace Owens' public college blog (no digging or doxxing necessary) where she professed support for the LGBTQ movement, criticized the Tea Party, claimed monogamy isn't natural, proudly proclaimed her one night stands, and discussed how she thinks cheating is sexy all within a year of her conservative heel turn. Nor that she was arrested for harassment when she was in high school (shocking).

The impetus of her heel turn? She made a website designed to doxx people called Social Autopsy that was met with criticism from leftist and conservatives, but the leftists had a larger megaphone. Her entire conservative run is an attention seeking endeavor and a revenge tour, not an actual worldview. It's why a significant portion of her public postings are now in the vein of what she started with, revealing private information about people for revenge.

She has always been this much of a *****. What changed in the last couple of years is a lack of oversight in the extent to which she was allowed to behave this way. She rose to "conservative" prominence (after being a leftist 6 months prior), was picked up by Turning Point within a month of branding herself "Red Pill Black" and had been attached to a major conservative platform pushing her content, from TPUSA to PragerU to DW to independent.

---

I compliment you. I have to say that I appreciated CO's stand against BLM and things adjacent to that as did Prager, Shapiro, and others. She is highly talented at her game. Very often these people are identified and groomed (In the classic sense, not necessarily sexual), for influential positions. Like Charlie was to a degree, like Erika I think. an investment is made into their careers. So you are saying Candace has broken her chain.
I don't think she has.

I'm not watching her dumb bull***** Be specific about what posts she's made that give you pause? What relevance are her old boyfriends? What is relevant about Romania? Is it actual factual? Know who else has ties to Romania? Candace's husband. Through his friend Andrew Tate. Who has been credibly charged with sex trafficking (you know, openly discussing his manipulation tactics to get women to post sexual content online for his own profit). Still a buddy of Candace.

Prediction: Nothing particularly relevant is going to come out of this. Certainly nothing as relevant as Candace Owens' public college blog (no digging or doxxing necessary) where she professed support for the LGBTQ movement, criticized the Tea Party, claimed monogamy isn't natural, proudly proclaimed her one night stands, and discussed how she thinks cheating is sexy all within a year of her conservative heel turn. Nor that she was arrested for harassment when she was in high school (shocking).

I don't want to argue any of that.
CO converted to catholicism, and since has also been taking shots at "protestants." I myself would be labeled by most as an evangelical or protestant, christian. I find her attacks on me as a non-catholic annoying. but idgas. I see this all as a battle between pro zionists and anti zionists. We are presented these well funded figureheads to slavishly support or demonize. It will be interesting to watch how this one plays out. If Owens has been thouroughly vetted and judged, why not the CEO of this powerful non-profit?

The average human doesn't process information through a true/false filter but through an us/them filter

— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) December 23, 2023

hph6203 said:

---

The average human doesn't process information through a true/false filter but through an us/them filter

— Michael Malice (@michaelmalice) December 23, 2023

---

totally agree.

That was a critique of your Zionist/Anti-Zionist comment. I am pointing out that when confronted about what Candace said that you agree with you said that you didn't want to discuss the details. You find them interesting enough to vaguely discuss them and then retreat when it gets into the details. What relevance are Erika's ex-boyfriends? What I posted about Candace is relevant to her subsequent commentary. A complete 180 in worldview. Why don't you want to discuss those details? Candace is on your team of Anti-Zionism.

Should Erika be vetted? Sure. She was. By her husband. Who decided he wanted her to take over. Which pisses the **** out of Candace and the dirt digging she's doing now isn't about finding out if she's capable of running TPUSA the way Charlie did (she's not, no one is, it will have to change), but rather to reputation damage her because Candace is BPD and reputational damage is the weapon of choice of women. Erika is not the first person she's done this to (by a long shot), she won't be the last (by a long shot).

She is a bad person. All you have to do is look at Candace's public history, not digging into her personal life necessary.

hph6203 said:

---

Should Erika be vetted? Sure. She was. By her husband. Who decided he wanted her to take over. .

---

This is really really naive. Or maybe you've just never dated anyone that beautiful. He wouldn't be the first man to lose his senses over a hot blonde.

Additionally, who's the source that said charlie wanted erika to take over? TPUSA? lol

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

I have zero doubt Jewish donors asked Charlie to cut ties Tucker Carlson and threatened removing donations if that didn't occur. So what? A person with money used it to push their worldview through a platform that pushes a worldview, and when that platform stopped pushing their worldview or provided opportunity for a counter message they decided they didn't want to fund it anymore? Shocking revelation. If TPUSA put Blaire White on stage and Matt Walsh decided he would no longer support TPUSA, because they promoted transgender ideology as a result, would Matt Walsh be a suspect in Charlie Kirk's death? Or is he just adhering to his ideology? ****** stuff.

I'm not watching her dumb bull***** Be specific about what posts she's made that give you pause? What relevance are her old boyfriends? What is relevant about Romania? Is it actual factual? Know who else has ties to Romania? Candace's husband. Through his friend Andrew Tate. Who has been credibly charged with sex trafficking (you know, openly discussing his manipulation tactics to get women to post sexual content online for his own profit). Still a buddy of Candace.

Prediction: Nothing particularly relevant is going to come out of this. Certainly nothing as relevant as Candace Owens' public college blog (no digging or doxxing necessary) where she professed support for the LGBTQ movement, criticized the Tea Party, claimed monogamy isn't natural, proudly proclaimed her one night stands, and discussed how she thinks cheating is sexy all within a year of her conservative heel turn. Nor that she was arrested for harassment when she was in high school (shocking).

The impetus of her heel turn? She made a website designed to doxx people called Social Autopsy that was met with criticism from leftist and conservatives, but the leftists had a larger megaphone. Her entire conservative run is an attention seeking endeavor and a revenge tour, not an actual worldview. It's why a significant portion of her public postings are now in the vein of what she started with, revealing private information about people for revenge.

She has always been this much of a *****. What changed in the last couple of years is a lack of oversight in the extent to which she was allowed to behave this way. She rose to "conservative" prominence (after being a leftist 6 months prior), was picked up by Turning Point within a month of branding herself "Red Pill Black" and had been attached to a major conservative platform pushing her content, from TPUSA to PragerU to DW to independent.

---

I compliment you. I have to say that I appreciated CO's stand against BLM and things adjacent to that as did Prager, Shapiro, and others. She is highly talented at her game. Very often these people are identified and groomed (In the classic sense, not necessarily sexual), for influential positions. Like Charlie was to a degree, like Erika I think. an investment is made into their careers. So you are saying Candace has broken her chain.
I don't think she has.

I'm not watching her dumb bull***** Be specific about what posts she's made that give you pause? What relevance are her old boyfriends? What is relevant about Romania? Is it actual factual? Know who else has ties to Romania? Candace's husband. Through his friend Andrew Tate. Who has been credibly charged with sex trafficking (you know, openly discussing his manipulation tactics to get women to post sexual content online for his own profit). Still a buddy of Candace.

Prediction: Nothing particularly relevant is going to come out of this. Certainly nothing as relevant as Candace Owens' public college blog (no digging or doxxing necessary) where she professed support for the LGBTQ movement, criticized the Tea Party, claimed monogamy isn't natural, proudly proclaimed her one night stands, and discussed how she thinks cheating is sexy all within a year of her conservative heel turn. Nor that she was arrested for harassment when she was in high school (shocking).

I don't want to argue any of that.
CO converted to catholicism, and since has also been taking shots at "protestants." I myself would be labeled by most as an evangelical or protestant, christian. I find her attacks on me as a non-catholic annoying. but idgas. I see this all as a battle between pro zionists and anti zionists. We are presented these well funded figureheads to slavishly support or demonize. It will be interesting to watch how this one plays out. If Owens has been thouroughly vetted and judged, why not the CEO of this powerful non-profit?

---

Who is saying this? And why do you think someone who makes accusations that are completely separate from reality is a better person to vet Erika than the TPUSA board and staff?

Candace Owens is a genius and everyone following her is similarly a genius.

This a pathologically stupid person. She didn't know at what temperature ice melts. She doesn't know what thunder is. But yeah sure she's out here solving global conspiracy theories.

Candace and her producer Savanna learn what thunder is (June 2024) pic.twitter.com/S6tl9OI712

— Candace Owens Trying to Read (Parody) (@candaceReading1) February 26, 2026

As I get older, one of the most disappointing things is realizing how many dumb Aggies are out there.

hph6203 said:

---

That was a critique of your Zionist/Anti-Zionist comment. I am pointing out that when confronted about what Candace said that you agree with you said that you didn't want to discuss the details. You find them interesting enough to vaguely discuss them and then retreat when it gets into the details. What relevance are Erika's ex-boyfriends? What I posted about Candace is relevant to her subsequent commentary. A complete 180 in worldview. Why don't you want to discuss those details? Candace is on your team of Anti-Zionism.

Should Erika be vetted? Sure. She was. By her husband. Who decided he wanted her to take over. Which pisses the **** out of Candace and the dirt digging she's doing now isn't about finding out if she's capable of running TPUSA the way Charlie did (she's not, no one is, it will have to change), but rather to reputation damage her because Candace is BPD and reputational damage is the weapon of choice of women. Erika is not the first person she's done this to (by a long shot), she won't be the last (by a long shot).

She is a bad person. All you have to do is look at Candace's public history, not digging into her personal life necessary.

---

The details are tedious. The one you call bat **** crazy has timelines and evidence and all her theories.

it wouldn't be an enjoyable exercise to prove to someone with your mindset, that the Kirk murder and aftermath including tpu$a, is worth investigating. It is such a powerful non-profit. we subsidize.
I suppose you'd say "Americans first" is a dog whistle of some kind, but that's where I am. I'm not on the anti-zionist team. "Discussing" details with you...come'on. on this thread? the decline thread. who is on a team?

And in light of you earlier prediction that nothing will come of this, why argue. Out of the gate I said I believe CO is an opportunist. I'm not defending her high school record here. I'm in the middle. On this thread it only seems like I'm on a team. I know I can't talk you into the middle.

LMAO "Candace hasn't been challenged or debated"?!?!?!

there are LITERALLY dozens of twitter sites that they ONLY CHALLENGE AND DEBATE HER every single day.

But some would rather make a great propagandist for the Nazi Party in 1945.

"But no one has challenged anything we said!!"

Either you believe he said that and TPUSA conveyed it, or you believe the remainder of TPUSA is so abjectly stupid that they would say that when it's not true which devalues the platform greatly as it's full of morons.

He did not "date" her. He married her, had kids with her, and effusively praised her publicly until his death. I have never dated a woman that I thought was morally bankrupt or annoying. That is the first filter. I'd rather be alone. For monkey brained people they might bend over backwards for a good looking woman that is an idiot or morally corrupt, but I don't think Charlie Kirk was monkey brained.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

Candace Owens is a genius and everyone following her is similarly a genius.

This a pathologically stupid person. She didn't know at what temperature ice melts. She doesn't know what thunder is. But yeah sure she's out here solving global conspiracy theories.

Candace and her producer Savanna learn what thunder is (June 2024) pic.twitter.com/S6tl9OI712

— Candace Owens Trying to Read (Parody) (@candaceReading1) February 26, 2026

As I get older, one of the most disappointing things is realizing how many dumb Aggies are out there.

---

I wouldn't say it's the Ags that are dumb

just humanity.

I truly think believers of weird conspiracy theories like 9/11, sandy hook, Erika Kirk, etc. are doing it as some type of very strange mental defense mechanism.

They're willing to believe something, no matter how outlandish, for the simple fact it puts them in a very small subcategory, which then automatically lets them believe they're smarter and capable of understanding things the masses aren't able to. It's an easy way for an otherwise not smart person to feel smart.

The mind is a very complicated thing and I think there is more going on here than just truly believing the current thing.

Can you believe these crazy people that think the government would lie to us?

hph6203 said:

---

Either you believe he said that and TPUSA conveyed it, or you believe the remainder of TPUSA is so abjectly stupid that they would say that when it's not true which devalues the platform greatly as it's full of morons.
.

---

Is that the only two options?

Quote:

---

It's an easy way for an otherwise not smart person to feel smart.

---

Excellent description of conspiracy theorists

This is a common rebuttal made by conspiracy theorists and it's such a disingenuous lazy cop out.

You can debunk every single specific belief in a conspiracy theory (Egyptian planes, etc) and instead of responding to those specific items they lazily revert to "oh you prob believe everything the govt says".


Every single thing Candace has claimed has been thoroughly debunked, so that's all you got at this point.


It's lazy.

"Are those"

Yes. They would have to be imminently stupid to announce that the wife of the founder was the selected heir apparent in the event of his demise, because it leaves no wiggle room on who should immediately be running the operation. An organization is not a brand, it's the decision making behind the brand. If they made those decisions then the value of the brand is diminished by the lack of honesty and decision making.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

This is a common rebuttal made by conspiracy theorists and it's such a disingenuous lazy cop out.

You can debunk every single specific belief in a conspiracy theory (Egyptian planes, etc) and instead of responding to those specific items they lazily revert to "oh you prob believe everything the govt says".

It's lazy.

---

And by the time you've debunked every one of the theories, they've got 10 more. At a certain point it becomes a situation of "if it's coming out of their mouth, I'm just going to assume its loony". If it's something coming out of different group-think bubbles, then it might have legs.

Know what I do when someone says "provide details"? I provide details. Your response is that they are deep and tedious. Tedious is another way of saying detailed in irrelevance. You said you didn't know about her ex-boyfriends. What is important about her ex-boyfriends? That they exist? That they were involved in mob activities? What exactly is relevant about them other than they dated Erika Kirk?

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.

---

Calling people crazy conspiracy theorists is the original lazy cop out.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

Candace Owens is a genius and everyone following her is similarly a genius.

This a pathologically stupid person. She didn't know at what temperature ice melts. She doesn't know what thunder is. But yeah sure she's out here solving global conspiracy theories.

Candace and her producer Savanna learn what thunder is (June 2024) pic.twitter.com/S6tl9OI712

— Candace Owens Trying to Read (Parody) (@candaceReading1) February 26, 2026

As I get older, one of the most disappointing things is realizing how many dumb Aggies are out there.

---

My f-ing FIVE YEAR OLD knows this, wtf

I think some people just have the gift of gab, and maybe a little charisma, and not much else. Physical attractiveness helps too. The fact that she would even admit to that, and expect that others would find it relatable. I bert the friend she references just played dumb in order to avoid getting fired or causing any static.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

I truly think believers of weird conspiracy theories like 9/11, sandy hook, Erika Kirk, etc. are doing it as some type of very strange mental defense mechanism.

They're willing to believe something, no matter how outlandish, for the simple fact it puts them in a very small subcategory, which then automatically lets them believe they're smarter and capable of understanding things the masses aren't able to. It's an easy way for an otherwise not smart person to feel smart.

The mind is a very complicated thing and I think there is more going on here than just truly believing the current thing.

---

I thnk i may agree to some extent, but it also doesn't help that our government is contantly lying to us and that many conspiracy theories have been revealed to be true, just usually years, or decades, after the fact. That adds so much unnecessary fuel to the fires.

No, like with Covid, we provided evidence until it became insurmountable and obvious to the masses.

We kept providing evidence until even MSM people like Jon Stewart said yeah it likely came from a lab.

You can't do that here so now you're playing victim.

Farmer_J said:

---

Calling people crazy conspiracy theorists is the original lazy cop out.

---

Not if they actually are crazy conspiracy theorists. As proven by Candace's insane and thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

No, like with Covid, we provided evidence until it became insurmountable and obvious to the masses.

We kept providing evidence until even MSM people like Jon Stewart said yeah it likely came from a lab.

You can't do that here so now you're playing victim.

---

Is providing a motive evidence?

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

No, like with Covid, we provided evidence until it became insurmountable and obvious to the masses.

We kept providing evidence until even MSM people like Jon Stewart said yeah it likely came from a lab.

You can't do that here so now you're playing victim.

---

Sorry to interrupt your congratulatory circle jerk but there's a long, long list of things where there was no evidence - until there was. It's a stupid argument to go down.

If my grandpa dies and I inherit money that obviously means I killed him, right?

Just because you think someone benefits does not establish motive. She didn't "benefit" anyway. Her ****ing husband and father of her children died. You're a twisted person.

You haven't established any motive. All you've done is thrown insane theories against the wall and they've all been debunked thoroughly.

I know all I need to know about you guy.