Candace Owens responds after Erika Kirk interview.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (83)
sorted by:
Even if you have 0.1% probability that someone might actually not have anything to do with their husband’s assassination and could be a real grieving widow is a good idea not to attack them. I am sure it’s not that hard to wait until the fog clears.
Naw, have to start asking questions immediately these days. Things move too quick. And Erika is far far too shady. Waiting until ‘the fog clears’ is not an option.
Exactly and anyone saying that Owens is on a “rant” for personal gain, is obviously not watching the mountain of evidence she has uncovered. Question everything.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention to the "fog".
If we all jumped in the same way to everytime things looked shady, boy, the last 8 years would have been totaly different.
b_b gets it.
she had no problem taking the mantle and going on a full media grief blitz storm. She had no problem forgiving the killer of her husband but she suddenly has a problem with the one person asking the questions we are all thinking?
Let me ask you this question because all i hear are innuendos, but no one says it out loud. What exactly do you think her role was in the assassination? What’s the single best proof you can provide for that?
Playing devils advocate, I would say she wasn't there because she knew it was going to happen and didn't want to be there when it did happen. (I know, that sounds retarded).
Yes, valid point, and completely consistent with the FBI having realised there was an assassination being plotted against him and decided to make it a sting operation.
I think what people are missing is - just because something doesn't add up, does not mean there is only one answer to the puzzle. Which is exactly what people like Candace are capitalizing on - leading their followers to think only in one way and not expand their thinking.
Where did I insinuate that she had a role? I’ll wait. My issue is that a lot of things don’t add up that day, and she is attacking the one person asking questions - about the assassination of her husband and the father of her children. She herself isn’t asking any questions, it’s all fine and dandy for her. To me, that’s very suspect, and I’d like to know more about all of it.
Hope that clears something up for you.
This is exactly what I was expecting. You cant even articulate what is it she is supposed to have done, but you have allowed the narratives to create so much animosity towards her that you judge everything she does as if there is an ulterior motive, while not being able to atleast say what it is.
Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of arguments i have on reddit regarding folks who fall for MSM narratives and have developed animosity towards Trump but without ever being able to articulate exactly what he did wrong.
Yes, and there are multiple explanations that can explain the things that don't add up. Like, if this was a sting operation / witness protection operation.
And this is entirely consistent with the same scenario. Infact, in this scenario, "asking questions" might. actually put them in even more danger. And that is exactly what Candace might be doing, wittingly or unwittingly, possibly because her husband might be her handler.
You are assuming that a person needs to behave in a certain way but thats like not being able to look at the whole chessboard and assuming the players have to be making certain specific moves.
She has no obligation to tell you or anyone else what she knows. Period.
Yes. I was worried I might have missed something important that Candace dropped, but you confirmed that its all just narrative spun around the face that things didn't add up that day, but without considering all scenarios.
Thanks, I needed that confirmation so I dont have to waste any more time on Candace.
Stew Peters has done the best breakdown on the Erika Kirk rabbit hole. She is shady AF.
This is exactly why I won’t watch Owen’s rants about Kirk’s death, she doesn’t care enough to consider that Kirk’s kids, while still very young, may in the future hear her theories about who was involved in assassinating their father. How awkward to hear from a supposedly good friend of their father that their beloved mother was in on killing their dad.
From what little I have heard about her rants, it looks like she uses her supposed friendship with Kirk as a weapon to attack others for not agreeing with everything she says and a shield to deflect anyone questioning her motives. Nasty stuff, regardless of where this all lands.
Is CO calling for the children to be taken away from Erika because of her theory that she is somehow involved in Kirk’s death? If not, then she’s just making money off of her rants, there’s no genuine concern there.
No one is saying its illegal to make money off of nasty stuff. Lefties do it all the time. Candace is welcome to do it as well.
Oh look another shill proud of their ignorance
Oh look another shill that can’t fathom an opposing angle that sees the forest instead of the trees. Can you tell me the timeline of events that immediately kicked off after CK assassination that has led to Soros being investigated for domestic terrorism? If not, then sit down clown.
Dude touch grass. You don't have an "opposing angle" because you "don't watch Owen's rants."
You earn an angle with educating yourself. Don't be another leftist bragging about what they don't know smh
"grieving widow"?
Have you been following any of Erika's movements or watched her video response?
And who gets to decide how someone grieves?
The public gets to decide if EK is involved in TPUSA's coverup of the CK murder by her actions and refusing to answer questions.
Have you actually been following CO's investigation or are you just lobbing out emotional rhetoric like EK (EF)?
Everything CO had put forward can be explained by the scenario of a sting operation / witness protection.
Yet the smart girl she is, she simply cannot concieve this scenario in her analyses somehow. Oh and she is the one who can't talk for 5 mins without getting totally emotional. Does that not bother you as well?
But on top of that she has not put forth anything that 100% implicates Erika or anyone else but people here still act like she did.
And actually she had no duty to answer to "public" just because the said public let their brains washed by the narrative being pushed.
Not very different from watching some of the lefties getting brainwashed by narratives that make then think Trump is a pedo, for instance
As soon as she put herself in the position of CEO and tried to silence anyone questioning his assassination, Mrs handkerchief dry eyes put herself in that position.
She jumped on to be the ceo.
This is a game left play. Put a woman in a position of power, then you cannot question anything, especially if it is a grieving woman because then you will make her cry.
You mean she took the position of her husband to do what they were doing together? How dare she!