Sylvia

@baroncoleman He genuinely seems possessed. I wonder if that’s what Tucker was getting at in his last episode…

Are still in that place where people are going to defend this as a normal post on Easter morning from an American president?

@JakeG_Official Agree but it might have been an exploding necklace.

Tyler Robinson didn’t kill Charlie Kirk. TPUSA + CIA + FBI was involved. lsrael had the most to gain from it. Charlie left Pro-lsrael cause + denounced the lran war + noticed. It was an expIoding microphone. They paved over the scene to remove the explosive trace evidence.

@ZachCostello_ I really wanted to watch the full debate but it was infuriating. I’m surprised how awful Andrew was at good faith debate seeing as he’s allegedly a “master debater”. He was condescending, arrogant, rude, and clearly not willing to see your side, at least for the 10 mins I watched

This conversation I had with Andrew Wilson was a slog and often about defining terms and semantics. But I think it was valuable, important, and fruitful. Getting clear on terms is important, and I appreciated the tough conversation. Shying away from difficult conversations is not the pursuit of truth. Here are some of my thoughts as I recap... Andrew demanded evidence of the alternative claims being made regarding the Charlie Kirk assassination case. This demand for 'evidence evidence evidence' is effective if seeking to "win a debate" and "be right" in the moment. But this constant appeal to evidence is not consistent with many things we believe about reality. We accept things on faith, trust, and intuition without 'hard and show me' evidence all of the time. We believe in God for example, I'm sure Andrew believes Jesus rose from the dead, etc. Atheists demand the same thing of believers that Andrew made of me in this conversation. I of course, cannot provide evidence that I do not have, or evidence that has been buried or shut down by authorities. Andrew would claim the authorities shut them down for a reason, but is it not reasonable to claim that authorities have also been proven to be either incompetent or dishonest? Is it not prudent to apply pressure and expose legitimate irregularities in order to hold them accountable to ensure they are telling us the truth? They told us, for example, there is no evidence that anyone did anything wrong in the Epstein files. They told us there was no evidence of the lab leak theory. You see how the constant appeal to "evidence" can be a problem. There are legitimate irregularities in this Charlie Kirk case that I think we can all agree they need to be investigated to the fullest extent. The push is for authorities to go find and discover the evidence to see why the irregularity occurred. A main issue I have is the attacks, diagnoses, and labeling of "conspiracy theorists" for anyone expressing doubt or questioning the 'lone wolf' narrative. I actually find it completely unacceptable given the day and age we live in. Andrew said that he would change his mind if evidence of an alternative theory was presented. This is where what Joe Kent has come out with is important. Kent is claiming that there is evidence relevant to the case involving a "foreign nexus" that was ignored or shut down. Andrew would say, show me that evidence. I of course and again, cannot because "it's classified." A category the government uses often to keep things from us, for our own good. The evidence we have is what Joe Kent is claiming. The actual piece of evidence Kent is talking about, we do not have. How could we? The public can only expose irregularities and provide leads. It is up to the authorities with the investigative power to find the evidence. You can claim that Joe Kent is a liar, but to that I would say then, show me the evidence he is lying. The FBI and Kash Patel say the evidence Joe Kent is referring to is irrelevant to the case. Joe Kent doesn't agree. What is that piece of evidence? If it's irrelevant, can't we know? Is this evidence irrelevant to the conviction of Tyler Robinson? Is the evidence against him specifically a slam dunk? Maybe. But if this case involved more than just Tyler Robinson, and there is more to the truth, we demand to know, and that is what "our side" is trying to get at, at least those trying operate in good faith. I don't think any of us (I hope) want the wrong guy convicted or the guy put into forever lock down silence until his death penalty date and who he worked with or who he was influenced by to carry this out is left unknown. In any case, I thank Andrew for the time and the conversation, and hopefully we can strive upward toward God and the truth. youtube.com/live/sWR1ZBOXT…

@ZachCostello_ @paleochristcon Zach, you deserve a better debating partner. Andrew was totally insufferable, wouldn’t let you even make your case without interrupting and nitpicking. I couldn’t even listen past 10 mins in.

Andrew Wilson will be joining me to discuss the different theories and fallout around the Charlie Kirk assassination involving TPUSA, Erika Kirk, Candace Owens, and more. Join us tomorrow (3/25) LIVE at 2:30PM !! @paleochristcon youtube.com/live/sWR1ZBOXT…

@paleochristcon @ZachCostello_ Your reply only supports my statement. You people dig your own graves.

@foolsabounnd @ZachCostello_ I had to stop reading this post after 10 letters because you are insufferable and provide no arguments or evidence for what you say.

If you want to watch my full debate with Zach on the Kirk assasination you can watch it here. I appreciated him having me. youtube.com/live/sWR1ZBOXT…

@ggreenwald @coldxman You’re a class act Glenn. 👏🏻

I think it's rather odd behavior to tape a 2-hour debate with me only 2 days ago, where I never interrupted you once and so you could say everything you wanted about my arguments, all while heralding the civility of the discussion (which I agreed with), only to then release this lengthy screed on the day you release the debate using all kinds of accusatory language and insulting rhetoric that you didn't use when I was in front of you, and where you to try re-cast all my arguments into something they weren't, and then repeat the same claims you made in the debate, but in a separate article about the debate where I can't respond to them, all to convince everyone that you really won. It would never have occurred to me to write a long article trying to explain to everyone why I was really right about everything in a debate that we just taped two days ago, that was just released today, and which everyone can go watch for themselves. I thought that was why we did it. Now, beyond all that, you're reduced to claiming I'm "lying," all by radically distorting what I said? I explicitly referred to the rather-famous Nixon tapes (you can Google those), not that interview you cited, although I'm glad you published that interview excerpt because I think it's a good thing for people to hear about how the lobby works. You made what I believed were false claims in that discussion, including one about Joe Kent's claims about Israel and the Butler assassination attempt, but I went out of my way to say I assumed you did it in good faith. Anyway, I'm sorry so much of your own audience at the Free Press and on your personal YouTube page thought that I had the better case, and that you had to spend your day in your own comment section arguing with them. I'm willing to let the debate stand on its own because I'm confident in what was demonstrated.

The Nixon thing is a lie. Full quote below. What Nixon actually said: (1) Jewish-Americans see US-Israel interests as perfectly aligned. (2) In fact, they're usually aligned, but not always. (3) When they're not aligned, he ignored the lobby and acted in U.S. interests.

@buckleycarlson @merissahansen17 And a paved over crime scene just days later. That one always gets me 🤯

All still relevant and unanswered. Plus, George Zinn, Jumping Jackass, and foreknowledge social media... @merissahansen17

@baroncoleman No show today?

Is this a threat? It sounds like a threat.

@IfindRetards @buckleycarlson

The people have spoken

@krassenstein This has to be sarcasm. Quebec is known as one of the most corrupt provinces, speaking as a Canadian myself. 🤦🏼‍♀️

We have left the United States for Montreal. No corruption here.

@DavidBCollum Think you mean “can’t”?

"You can become what they call you." --Tucker Carlson, peering into my soul

@TPUSA Worst lineup ever. Hard no 😂

This Is the Turning Point Tour is BACK 🇺🇸 Join us at a campus near you: theturningpointtour.com

@KrystinaSnyder4 @Rach4Patriarchy @JayDyer No, but she mainstreamed it.

@foolsabounnd @Rach4Patriarchy @JayDyer Why on earth would it be a nod to her? QAndace is not the first person to use that phrase lol

vindicated

@Rach4Patriarchy @JayDyer Are you not a fan of Candace? As a fan of hers, and after having listened to your Rogan episode I was sure you would like her. To be sure, you both see eye to eye when it comes to feminism. I also thought you saying Marxism was “fake and gay” was a nod to her.

@JayDyer Knew it

@DavidBCollum @RealCandaceO @_whitneywebb And this is why the campaign to shut her up is so forceful.

I have dug into @RealCandaceO's work over the years. She goes out over her skiis. She may have gotten some stuff wrong, but I have never caught her in what I would call a willful lie. She reminds me of @_whitneywebb: they assemble complex puzzles. Sometimes the picture is incomplete but few others do that. youtube.com/shorts/SCTALwW…

@JeremyDBoreing Where’s the proof? You can’t just say shit 🤣🤣

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 Kirk's assassination. Neither Dan Bongino nor Kash Patel nor Donald Trump nor the CIA nor the FBI are complicit in the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The State of Israel didn't assassinate Charlie Kirk. Neither Seth Dillon nor Josh Hammer threatened Charlie Kirk in the Hamptons. And Candace Owens was not Charlie Kirk's best friend (certainly not at the time of his death) or vice versa. Consider the issues addressed.

@candaceReading1 Why do you think anyone gives a fuck that she mispronounces words occasionally? If that’s really the only way you can criticize her that says a lot more about you than her.

Rather than Candace learning basic words, her team appears to have resorted to muting words like “architecture” to avoid mispronunciations. This video includes the original audio from last week’s Episode 305 at 48:30.

@MikhailaFuller Notice the smear campaigns that have started against Candace just as she takes a week off of her show. Like clockwork. We’re tired 🥱

It makes me so angry honestly. Erika Kirk is devastated. Horrible (primarily) women on the internet have the audacity to wonder “why her eyes look messed up”. It’s because her husband was murdered you morons. Have you ever wept? A lot? She’s heartbroken, traumatized, and alone with babies. It’s beyond terrible. “Why isn’t she at home with her kids”? You jealous she-devils, she IS at home with her kids. Occasionally she works, because her assassinated husband left her in charge of his business for the greater good because he trusted her competency over everyone else’s. Maybe you guys are so dumb you can’t believe that because you certainly wouldn’t be capable of it. Way to not have any semblance of human compassion or decency. And obviously no understanding of Christianity. It’s astounding after witnessing the evil that that family faced, and now Erika, a WIDOW, faces, that people don’t believe in God. Because obviously evil exists. But sure. You guys are so brilliant you’ve figured out what the FBI hasn’t. It’s the new Epstein. Morons. Did you dream the truth? Maybe look for it in the stars? Float over people and see things (whatever the hell that’s called)? Brilliant. And this is coming from someone who wasn’t vaccinated because it was obviously a scam. And who lost faith in the medical system and food pyramid before it was “cool”. If anyone’s “conspiratorial” it’s me. Not everything is a scam. It’s women like you that make the manosphere exist and make men think we’re stupid and naive. Thanks. I’ve avoided commenting or mentioning Candace after she completely randomly went after my dad and I. We “debated” on Piers and the her retarded fans went after me too. And she just likes the attention, so normally I don’t say anything. But just in case anyone’s forgotten whose side I’m on, it’s not the side of the people who are picking on a widow. P.S. anyone who constantly reminds their audience they’re a mother and a Christian and that’s why they should be trusted is appealing to authority (a logical fallacy). Hiding behind “Christianity”. Shiver. Good luck with that.

@CollinRugg This clip is very deceptively edited to make it seem like Tucker doesn’t support Candace, when in fact he does. Fuck off