ScrollingWithCoffee

LOL seriously? This reads less like an argument and more like a sales pitch wrapped in condescension. You accuse others of blind loyalty while asking them to trust your unnamed "system", your AI grading, and your "massive research" without presenting a single concrete piece of evidence in the post itself. That’s not exposing propaganda. That is the same appeal to authority you’re criticizing. And the whole "you’re in the 1% if you agree with me" framing isn’t insight, it’s manipulation. It’s the exact psychological hook you claim Candace uses... just repackaged with a different logo. People can support Candace Owens, disagree with her, or scrutinize her claims without being "psyoped". If your case is as strong as you say, you wouldn’t need buzzwords, vague tools, and moral gatekeeping. You’d just present clear, verifiable facts and let them stand on their own!

Didn't work for you? How's this? I find it absolutely sad how Candace Owens' followers/supporters keep accepting **anything** she says as true—with **no facts**, **no evidence**. They claim she has proof, but not **one** of them ever comes with **any**! It's almost like they've been **psyoped** to defend her no matter what. She makes them feel special—like they're "part of the investigation," her tip line, the "Candace Intelligence Agency" (she even has CIA merch!). Or she says "we're getting close," "we made them mad," "we're over the target"—always "WE" to keep you hooked and loyal. I use a tool called the NCI Engineered Reality Scoring System (Grok or Gemini grades it for me) to prove the propaganda, emotional manipulation, and engineered narrative every time. I'm not trying to dunk on you. I'm trying to share the evidence I've gained from massive research. Let me know if you want to know what I found. I'd be more than happy to share. Be honest: **none**—not even one—of her followers has ever reached back out to actually look at the receipts. (AND I DO THIS EVRYDAY ON ALL PLATFORMS) Truth just doesn't matter anymore to most of her followers. Unless you're in that **1%** who actually care. If you read this far… maybe there's hope. Maybe you'll listen with an open mind and honest heart. Who knows—before long you might be posting your own testimony with the hashtag: *** #CandExit *** #WalkAway while you still have your dignity....

No one serious is defending antisemitism, but turning that into a blanket requirement to align with specific political positions is where this goes off track. Rejecting hatred and defending religious freedom shouldn’t be used as a shield to shut down legitimate questions or debate!

Catholics are called to reject antisemitism and the lies and conspiracies that fuel it, and to stand clearly against hatred and violence directed toward our Jewish brothers and sisters. To defend religious freedom with integrity, we must also reject antisemitism. @ArchbishpSample @archdpdx Watch the full video at: ow.ly/sYF550Yw6cA

Oh come on now... declaring entire belief systems “not real” isn’t insight, it’s just assertion without argument. Billions of people across history don’t hinge their lives on ideas you can dismiss with a bullet list, and pretending they do says more about your certainty than your reasoning.

A few things that aren’t real, and that we’d do best to grow out of: • Chosen peoples • Messiahs • Prophets • Salvation • Damnation • Revelation • Angels • Demons • gods • God (not the same as ‘gods’)

That’s a massive overreach built on a half-understood clip. Yes, Megyn Kelly criticized a graphic blending U.S. and Israeli flags, but context matters. Some of these graphics were part of broader war coverage involving multiple countries, including Iran, not simple “alliances” being promoted. Pretending every visual use of flags is the same is where your argument falls apart. And jumping from that to “she destroyed her career” is just wishful thinking. One disagreement over optics in wartime coverage isn’t career ending. It’s a difference in interpretation that you’re inflating into a verdict...

So @megynkelly was livid at Fox News for blending an American flag with an Israeli one during its Iran war coverage. @LauraLoomer dropped this image of Megyn's show blending an Iranian flag with the U.S. flag. It's confirmed as genuine. Megyn Kelly has destroyed her career.

@HanShawnity How does it benefit us as Americans?

Hate to break it to you, but if you oppose all actions that may benefit the United States just because it also benefits Israel, you're not America First, you're Israel First.

@DinduApe Repeating “I disavow” nine times doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it louder. If you have a real point, make it. Otherwise this is just grandstanding while pretending to demand answers.

I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll I disavow Ian Carroll Until he answers the question. What evidence has Candace Owens produced against Erika Kirk? Answer the question, Ian. Still waiting.

Charlie Kirk actually expressed skepticism and opposition to U.S. involvement in a war with Iran, warning it could lead to a prolonged conflict and destabilization. At the same time, his stance wasn’t perfectly rigid. In some cases, he praised specific strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, even while still cautioning against broader war or regime change, so there's that.

Just a reminder, Charlie Kirk supported the bombing of Iran because he: 1. Supports Trump 2. Iran gave us no choice

@ginamilan_ If that’s the best you’ve got, it says more about your argument than it does about her.

Candace Owens you’re a delusional bitch. Seek fucking mental help.

@marklevinshow You can't pay me enough to listen to you.

Don’t waste your time at 6 pm eastern with Qatarlson’s absurd phonycast.  Listen to my radio show instead. You can hear it everywhere.  God bless!

@ClearReason That’s a false equivalence. You can oppose or question a state’s policies, structure, or even its form without hating a people. Collapsing every disagreement into “hate” just shuts down any honest discussion.

You can criticize Israel. Denying the Jewish people a homeland? What is that, if not hate?

@WellsJorda89710 Really? No other Presidents? Abraham Lincoln (1865) James A. Garfield (1881) William McKinley (1901) John F. Kennedy (1963) Shot but survived Ronald Reagan (1981)

When are these pundits gonna learn? Trump took a BULLET for this country—no other president has done that. Tucker & Megyn can talk foreign policy all day, but until they take one for America, we'll trust the man who already did. Trump: 84% Republican support on foreign policy. Carlson/Kelly: 6%. Trump We Trust. Period." 🔥🇺🇸

Re; The CNN MAGA poll.. It’s funny to watch how quickly “fake news” turns into a trusted source the moment it supports someone’s argument. For years, CNN polls were dismissed as biased, unreliable, or completely made up. Now suddenly they’re being quoted like gospel because they happen to fit the current narrative. You can’t have it both ways. Either the source is credible or it isn’t. If it was untrustworthy yesterday, it doesn’t magically become accurate today just because it’s convenient. That’s not consistency, that’s selective belief!

Also ... It’s funny to watch how quickly “fake news” turns into a trusted source the moment it supports someone’s argument. For years, CNN polls were dismissed as biased, unreliable, or completely made up. Now suddenly they’re being quoted like gospel because they happen to fit the current narrative. You can’t have it both ways. Either the source is credible or it isn’t. If it was untrustworthy yesterday, it doesn’t magically become accurate today just because it’s convenient. That’s not consistency, that’s selective belief.

Let me know if you're part of the 100% 🙋‍♂️

@LangmanVince No.

That kind of language is exactly the problem! Comparing people to cancer and talking about “burning them out” doesn’t defend reason or unity, it abandons both. It’s dehumanizing, and it shuts down any chance of actual conversation. You don’t have to agree with Candace Owens or anyone who follows her. You can challenge ideas, point out flaws, and argue your position strongly. But once you start framing other people as a disease that needs to be eradicated, you’ve crossed into the same kind of rhetoric you claim to be against. If the goal is truth or unity, it starts with treating people like people, not something to be destroyed!

Candace Owens is cancer. Her followers are tumors that have metastasized and spread rapidly across the country, filling minds with lies, hate, and division every single day. We have to use radiation to burn this entire disease out completely before it destroys what remains of reason and unity.

That’s a pretty broad generalization. You might be seeing strong opinions about Israel or its policies, but that isn’t the same as hatred toward Jewish people. There are millions of Catholics around the world with a wide range of views. The Catholic Church itself has explicitly rejected antisemitism for decades. Disagreeing with a government or geopolitical issue doesn’t automatically translate into prejudice against a people or a faith. It’s worth separating criticism, politics, and actual hate before grouping everyone together like that...

I didn't know until recently just how much many Catholics hate Israel and the Jewish people. For those that call themselves Christians it's very troubling.

That argument falls apart once you separate criticism from prejudice. Disagreeing with how a country is treated, represented, or prioritized is not the same as applying a “different standard” in a biased or hateful way. Context matters. People often react differently to Israel because of the unique relationship it has with the United States politically, financially, and militarily. That alone makes comparisons to other countries incomplete. Pointing out that someone is uncomfortable with blending the U.S. flag with Israel’s flag is not evidence of antisemitism. It can just as easily reflect a concern about national identity, foreign policy, or symbolism. The fact that someone may treat other countries differently does not automatically mean bias. It may reflect differences in alliances, conflicts, or public sentiment though. Also, expanding the definition of antisemitism to include any perceived inconsistency in how Israel is discussed risks diluting the term. Antisemitism is a serious issue and should remain focused on actual hostility or discrimination toward Jewish people, not disagreements over policy, symbolism, or media presentation. If there is no clear evidence of hatred toward Jews as a people, then labeling criticism or discomfort as antisemitism is a stretch.

.@DennisPrager said the definition of antisemitism is when you hold Israel to a different standard than other nations or when you hate Jews for being Jews. I don’t think @megynkelly hates Jews. But she sure seems to hold Israel to a different standard. She’s horrified that the Israeli flag would be overlaid with the American flag, yet on her channel she does this all the time with the flags of different countries. Why is Israel different?

@koshercockney Calling it her “legacy” because you don’t like who she’s talked to isn’t analysis, it’s wishful thinking. Declaring Megyn Kelly “irrelevant” while she’s still drawing attention just makes this read like more projection than reality.

In my opinion Megyn ‘Grandma Groyper’ Kelly has made herself completely laughable/irrelevant now by joining with Candace, Fuentes etc. She’s literally a joke now and the internet is laughing at her. That’s her legacy. And there’s no coming back from it. Quite sad really. But let’s be honest she doesn’t deserve any sympathy, does she. It’s been of her own making.

Facts are things that can be verified against reality, not just believed or repeated. They don’t change based on opinion, only on evidence. Facts matter because without them, everything just turns into noise and opinion. If you don’t anchor to reality, anyone can say anything and call it truth.

@RealCalvin1 That narrative assumes motives you can’t prove and turns disagreement into exploitation... People can respect Charlie’s work and still disagree with others without it being “building a name on his grave.”

I feel bad for Charlie. Spends his time building the right, and after his death woke right build their name on his grave and spend every day attacking Erika.