@Rach4Patriarchy@officialtripoli@brokensim@samtripoli@JohnnyWoodard The problem is a lot of us just want the truth about what happened to Charlie. And the official narrative doesn’t add up. Legitimate questions were ignored and mocked by TPUSA for the better part of the past year. And now they’re allowing things to be addressed this way? Why?
@SharrellAnne2 Watch Valhalla VFT on YouTube. He does a full ballistics test using the exact ammo they say was used. He recreated the exact angle and distance and tests it on multiple objects including a recently killed animal (pig I believe). He doesn’t draw any conclusions. Just testing.
@RealBayes Exactly. And now Andrew is helping to re establish the left/right narrative. he may have gotten into this believing they were being genuine, thinking he was going to one up Candace. I want him to release ALL the evidence they’ve given him. Then maybe finally we can get answers
@ArtifexMemor@grok@paleochristcon I’m gonna give some grace and say Andrew prob didn’t know they were fake. He assumes he’s working with honest actors. I had hoped he was right. But this looks bad
@LionelMedia Don’t care at all. I’m only looking for what happened to Charlie and we gotta stop getting caught up in the drama— from both “sides” honestly.
@conservmillen Good for you :) but Some of us know how to monitor our time on TikTok and other apps. You know, one of the fruits of the spirit, self control. So please don’t speak to women like this.
@TheLFLounge@gregoryMhigdon@paleochristcon I think the point that Candace made was that eye witnesses are evidence. And if the police took the receipt and verified whether or not it was Tyler Robinson it would turn into proof. We don’t know if they’ve investigated or not.
@CrystalSmallen I would. Doesn’t everyone commemorate their dead loved ones in some way? This is reaching very hard. All her weird behaviour aside, this seems pretty normal on its own.
Did you know that you can disagree with somebody without saying they are a moron, shill, evil, POS scumbag, liar, detestable idiot?
The emotionally charged and unhinged comments people make about people they disagree with is wild as hell.
If they are provably lying, sure, they should be called a liar. But many of these comments are said towards people somebody just disagrees with.
@Donna_Rachel_ And then he can apply for a spouse visa from there US and come join you here once it’s approved (about 3 months). This way cuts out the unecessary extra visa cost of the initial “fiancé visa” you’d have to get otherwise
@Donna_Rachel_ I’m an American going through the visa process right now. Your (the sponsor) only option is to either get a second job that pushes your income over the threshold or combine your savings with your fiancé to amount to around £88,000. I would suggest getting married in the states.
The hypocrisy shared by @BlakeSNeff and @paleochristcon in how they treat Erika’s beliefs versus Candace’s beliefs is stunning.
Watch this clip to see that double standard play out in real time during the recent debate.
When Erika publicly expressed 100% certainty that Tyler Robinson murdered her husband, Andrew’s defense was:
“Let’s say [Erika] believed it with every fiber of her being…”
And:
“How is [Erika] trying to fool the public…if she believes it?”
When it comes to Erika, sincere belief itself is treated as a sufficient enough explanation. She can arrive at 100% certainty based on whatever personally convinces her, and Andrew treats “she believes it” as the answer.
But, when Candace says she believes with full confidence that Israel and France were involved, suddenly her personal assessment is illegitimate unless she produces evidence sufficient enough for Blake Neff, Andrew Wilson, and the entire rest of the world to independently reach the same conclusion.
If she fails, that "proves" she is irrational, dishonest, and was merely trying to fool the public.
You cannot coherently defend Erika with “but what if she really believes it?” and then declare Candace’s belief illegitimate merely because you remain unconvinced by the reasons she gave for it.
Those are just two completely different standards that seem to depend entirely on whose conclusion you prefer.
Meanwhile, these beliefs are not even remotely equivalent in their real world stakes.
Erika is the murdered man’s widow publicly saying with certainty that the defendant, who has not even been convicted yet and could literally be sentenced to death, murdered her husband.
Candace is expressing her belief that additional people or governments were likely involved in a broader conspiracy.
Israel and France are not sitting in jail right now waiting to find out whether they’re going to be executed because Candace said she believes they were involved.
So if “she sincerely believes it” is enough to defend absolute certainty in the first situation, I am struggling to understand why it suddenly becomes worthless in the second.
What if Candace just believes it with every fiber of her being, Blake?