Mike
Andrew Wilson
- Onderwerp starter fatsnotbad
- Startdatum
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Mike
Text-gate came up & it’s still shady especially since back in December Erika confidently said that she had Charlie’s phone & that he didn’t receive any messages about being worried that he was going to be deleted. Then the messages magically appeared when Erika rushed to meet with Candace in person (most likely because she wanted to know what other evidence Candace had).
Now Pickles has the actual text message. He read it during the debate today, but he refused to actually show it because he wants to use it as clickbait for his slimy show. Did I get that right?! But they say that Candace is the grifter
. Okay, wise guy.
It all comes down to them trying to trap her into making statements that could bring her more legal trouble (I’m glad she was careful with that) AND wanting to know what other evidence she has. Without knowing they feel stuck. They can’t go around town lying like liars in liar-ville because if they lie and Candace drops more receipts, they will look worse than they already do. That simple.
Anyway, @RealCandaceO did an incredible job! Pickles will say otherwise to his audience. That’s okay. He is free to believe whatever he wants. We choose to believe the truth over here.
Mike
Now Pickles has the actual text message. He read it during the debate today, but he refused to actually show it because he wants to use it as clickbait for his slimy show. Did I get that right?! But they say that Candace is the grifter
. Okay, wise guy. It all comes down to them trying to trap her into making statements that could bring her more legal trouble (I’m glad she was careful with that) AND wanting to know what other evidence she has. Without knowing they feel stuck. They can’t go around town lying like liars in liar-ville because if they lie and Candace drops more receipts, they will look worse than they already do. That simple.
Anyway, @RealCandaceO did an incredible job! Pickles will say otherwise to his audience. That’s okay. He is free to believe whatever he wants. We choose to believe the truth over here.
Mike
Mike
ANDREW WILSON: DID YOU PROVE YOUR CASE AGAINST CANDACE OWENS?
(Attached: ChatGPT’s Analysis of the Debate — August 14, 2026)
Andrew @paleochristcon
You came to this debate claiming there was “overwhelming evidence” that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk. But before the debate had properly begun, you quietly changed what that meant. “Overwhelming evidence” no longer meant evidence so strong that it overwhelmingly established the case; it meant only that you, Andrew Wilson, just “find it very convincing.”
Then you added: “That’s, I think, what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence.”
No, Andrew. Most people understand “overwhelming evidence” to mean that the evidence itself is extraordinarily strong—that there is solid proof. But that’s precisely the problem: the official narrative is riddled with unresolved contradictions, built on inconclusive, contested evidence, and clouded by troubling questions about the FBI’s handling of the case.
This semantic sleight of hand converted a claim about the strength of the evidence into one about the strength of your own belief. The first carries a serious burden of proof; the second carries almost none.
The maneuver was easy to miss. “Overwhelming evidence” quietly became “I find it very convincing,” and the debate moved on. It was an escape route. You could continue enjoying the rhetorical force of “overwhelming evidence,” while always having the fallback: “I only meant that I personally find it convincing.”
This was remarkably slippery of you.
The same double standard appeared in the way you treated Candace’s use of intuition.
When she says, in effect, “Something feels wrong here, so I want to investigate it,” you treat that subjective judgment as insignificant. But suspicion, inconsistency and intuition are entirely legitimate starting points for investigation. Human beings routinely sense something is wrong before they can prove why.
Yet when you say, “I find this evidence convincing,” your own subjective judgment suddenly becomes the basis for calling the evidence itself “overwhelming.”
That is quite an extraordinary double standard: Candace’s intuition requires proof, while your finding the evidence convincing becomes the measure of its strength.
You came armed with a handful of mistakes Candace had made, so at least you had some ammunition. But that was pretty shabby, given that she has always acknowledged and corrected her errors. Once you had exhausted those attack points, you had very little left—principally because you demonstrated nothing like her depth of knowledge of this case.
So you reverted to juvenile bullying tactics: sniping, baiting, interrupting, trying to disconcert her and dictate how she was allowed to answer. These tricks may work on lesser opponents, but this time, Andrew, you were punching well above your weight. You didn’t look formidable. You looked increasingly desperate—and frankly, at times your performance was infuriating and utterly repellent to watch.
Finally came the most revealing moment of all. You opened this debate with extraordinary confidence, insisting the official narrative and the state’s evidence were “overwhelming.” But by the end, you conceded that perhaps the two of you had reached a stalemate on whether Tyler Robinson did it.
Andrew, that was not a stalemate. That was the collapse of the very proposition you had come so confidently to prove.
At one point you said, “I’m not a nice man.” By then, Andrew, nobody needed telling. What made the remark interesting was that it sounded like your conscience was briefly pricking you—your snark, intimidation and calculated unpleasantness are part of how you try to throw an opponent off balance. Meanness is not intellectual force, and disconcerting someone is not the same as defeating their argument. In that sense, your remark almost explained both how you tried to win—but also why you didn’t.
@RealCandaceO @patrickbetdavid
#CandaceOwens #CharlieKirk #TPUSA #FBI
Mike
(Attached: ChatGPT’s Analysis of the Debate — August 14, 2026)
Andrew @paleochristcon
You came to this debate claiming there was “overwhelming evidence” that Tyler Robinson murdered Charlie Kirk. But before the debate had properly begun, you quietly changed what that meant. “Overwhelming evidence” no longer meant evidence so strong that it overwhelmingly established the case; it meant only that you, Andrew Wilson, just “find it very convincing.”
Then you added: “That’s, I think, what most people mean when they say overwhelming evidence.”
No, Andrew. Most people understand “overwhelming evidence” to mean that the evidence itself is extraordinarily strong—that there is solid proof. But that’s precisely the problem: the official narrative is riddled with unresolved contradictions, built on inconclusive, contested evidence, and clouded by troubling questions about the FBI’s handling of the case.
This semantic sleight of hand converted a claim about the strength of the evidence into one about the strength of your own belief. The first carries a serious burden of proof; the second carries almost none.
The maneuver was easy to miss. “Overwhelming evidence” quietly became “I find it very convincing,” and the debate moved on. It was an escape route. You could continue enjoying the rhetorical force of “overwhelming evidence,” while always having the fallback: “I only meant that I personally find it convincing.”
This was remarkably slippery of you.
The same double standard appeared in the way you treated Candace’s use of intuition.
When she says, in effect, “Something feels wrong here, so I want to investigate it,” you treat that subjective judgment as insignificant. But suspicion, inconsistency and intuition are entirely legitimate starting points for investigation. Human beings routinely sense something is wrong before they can prove why.
Yet when you say, “I find this evidence convincing,” your own subjective judgment suddenly becomes the basis for calling the evidence itself “overwhelming.”
That is quite an extraordinary double standard: Candace’s intuition requires proof, while your finding the evidence convincing becomes the measure of its strength.
You came armed with a handful of mistakes Candace had made, so at least you had some ammunition. But that was pretty shabby, given that she has always acknowledged and corrected her errors. Once you had exhausted those attack points, you had very little left—principally because you demonstrated nothing like her depth of knowledge of this case.
So you reverted to juvenile bullying tactics: sniping, baiting, interrupting, trying to disconcert her and dictate how she was allowed to answer. These tricks may work on lesser opponents, but this time, Andrew, you were punching well above your weight. You didn’t look formidable. You looked increasingly desperate—and frankly, at times your performance was infuriating and utterly repellent to watch.
Finally came the most revealing moment of all. You opened this debate with extraordinary confidence, insisting the official narrative and the state’s evidence were “overwhelming.” But by the end, you conceded that perhaps the two of you had reached a stalemate on whether Tyler Robinson did it.
Andrew, that was not a stalemate. That was the collapse of the very proposition you had come so confidently to prove.
At one point you said, “I’m not a nice man.” By then, Andrew, nobody needed telling. What made the remark interesting was that it sounded like your conscience was briefly pricking you—your snark, intimidation and calculated unpleasantness are part of how you try to throw an opponent off balance. Meanness is not intellectual force, and disconcerting someone is not the same as defeating their argument. In that sense, your remark almost explained both how you tried to win—but also why you didn’t.
@RealCandaceO @patrickbetdavid
#CandaceOwens #CharlieKirk #TPUSA #FBI
Mike
Mike
Mike
Andrew Wilson looks absolutely EXHAUSTED and visibly nervous.
He’s doing his opening statement by literally reading off his phone. I’ve never seen Andrew need his phone to get through a debate like this before.
This is completely embarrassing. He looks rattled before the debate has even really started.
DEBATE UPDATE: Andrew Wilson is getting fact-checked in REAL TIME.
Andrew claimed he never made a tweet — and Candace Owens’ team immediately pulled up his own tweets proving otherwise.
The secondhand embarrassment is getting painful.
At one point, PBD literally looked at Andrew like he couldn’t believe what he was hearing from Andre Wilson.
This debate is getting BRUTAL.
Mike
He’s doing his opening statement by literally reading off his phone. I’ve never seen Andrew need his phone to get through a debate like this before.
This is completely embarrassing. He looks rattled before the debate has even really started.
DEBATE UPDATE: Andrew Wilson is getting fact-checked in REAL TIME.Andrew claimed he never made a tweet — and Candace Owens’ team immediately pulled up his own tweets proving otherwise.
The secondhand embarrassment is getting painful.
At one point, PBD literally looked at Andrew like he couldn’t believe what he was hearing from Andre Wilson.
This debate is getting BRUTAL.
Mike
Mike
Mike
Forum statistieken
