Charlie Kirk - so what now ?
- Thread starter the_seeker
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
Perhaps the lawsuit with the school was about how insulted she felt when the school didn't consider her black enough to let her experience the racism her friends and family were experiencing?
Come on...did you even look further into this story?
"According to Mr Bromet, the French Presidents' wife was shocked to see her legal name had been changed by hackers in her personal tax account. Mrs Macron has since filed a complaint and two people involved in the hacking have been identified." link
"French authorities have said that the name "Jean-Michel" did appear on Macron’s personal tax account—but not as a result of any official documentation, because her account had been hacked and altered by outside actors. Tristan Bromet, Macron's chief of staff, told French broadcaster BFMTV that they were “completely surprised” to find the name changed to “Jean-Michel, known as Brigitte Macron” in a section of the tax portal meant to be uneditable." link
This level of rumor-mongering is garbage. IF she's a man, that has yet to be proven, so these accusations are pure speculation and bearing false witness. IF she proves she's a woman, that means she's been subjected to years of lies, stress and harassment. I'm wondering how many of us would like to be dragged on social media like this. There are bigger issues out there that that actually matter. This is not one of them.
Yes, I understand that she is contesting this and yes I understand that we can still hash this out, but a legal document is "evidence" and although I am not familiar with France I assume they have some kind of legal ID that is assigned to you at birth connecting you to a name and a birth certificate.
A tax document is about the most valuable document the government has on a person. Could it be wrong? Let the courts decide, but one way or another this is evidence of fraud and deceit. Either Brigette is lying or someone has fraudulently altered these legal documents.
So fine, they are accusing the documents of being "hacked". I have no way of knowing who is telling the truth, but if someone wants to now tell me that Candace Owens has hacked France's tax service, that seems extremely far fetched. In fact why would anyone hack the tax documents to change the name and sex of the President's wife? I'm opening to them proving this in court, but it seems like a far fetched explanation to me.
What? Where are you getting that from? No one said Owens hacked Macron's tax record. The articles state the hackers were identified. Would be easy to hack if they're on the inside. Of course the french authorities could be lying - but you would have to prove that with actual evidence.
You're basically throwing things in here hoping something will stick, but you're not posting facts. That's the problem. The fact is NO ONE KNOWS at this point.
You can't be serious. She has become a target thanks to years of rumor-mongering. Of course hackers are going to go after her. This is no different to people altering Michelle Obama's photos to "prove" she is a man. Not a fan of either of these people, but if they are women, then they've been subjected to very cruel and destructive lies.
This is relevant to this story whether it was hackers or it is legit and talking about Michelle Obama has nothing to do with this story. No one waited for the courts to rule on this before posting about it, so this is certainly part of the story and one would think something that Candace can use to defend herself, even if it was hackers.
How about this: Candace Owens shouldn't be defaming, accusing, and harassing anyone without absolute proof, period. Then she wouldn't have to worry about lawsuits. What she's doing is unethical, unChristian, and in some cases illegal.
Has it occurred to you that Owens is trying to build an Alex Jones style empire [$$] and will say anything for attention, followers, and money? Her vile behavior and unsubstantiated claims surrounding the Kirks and TPUSA along with her claims that Elon Musk is a hybrid should have tipped you off. If she honestly cared about truth, she would wait until she verified facts before launching her attacks. CLEARLY she's not interested in facts.
Hold on a second, you are complaining that I post something that has yet to be proven in a court of law and now you are posting that she has defamed someone, a claim that also has not been proven in a court of law.
This post was not from Candace Owens. I have not posted anything from her. This was simply a tax document from France that supports Candace Owens claim, and which Macron has claimed is the result of hackers.
You are the one who keeps trying to throw in irrelevant references to Alex Jones and Michelle Obama, neither of which are relevant to this case or the post I made.
You literally posted the following with no further explanation other than a video allegedly proving Owens correct:
"Candace Owens Was RIGHT?! French Gov Admits Brigitte Macron Is A MAN!"
First: Neither of those things are true. Second: You seem to be trying to prove Owens is correct via secondary sources that you haven't researched. It's like throwing spaghetti at a wall to see what sticks.
That is the title of this video, if you go to the video this is their title, not mine, and yes, the evidence supports Candace assertion. Until it is proven in a court of law to be the result of hackers it should be considered a legitimate legal document supporting the assertion that Brigette is a man.
I am not trying to do anything. I know we have discussed this case on this thread and this is evidence that is relevant to the case. That said I do not understand why anyone on this thread would take issue with this being posted. It is news, it is relevant and it will certainly have bearing on the case one way or the other. What are you and others trying to hide?
You were the one who mentioned this first, not me. Once you mention this lawsuit it is fair game to have any news relevant to it posted here.
Your attempt to censor it is a red flag, why would you mention this lawsuit and then try to censor evidence that comes out relevant to it?
You have the freedom to post whatever you want. But this being a forum, you can expect people to question and fact check what you choose to post.
- Are you saying that questioning your posts [including posted videos] is censoring?
- Are you still claiming the video you posted contains evidence that Macron is a man in light of the fact that french authorities state her account was hacked and they caught who did it??
I'm saying what I posted is very relevant to this case. I am also saying that the simplest way to put an end to all the speculation is for Brigette to do a cheek swab, show the DNA which will prove once and for all male or female, and that evidence will be the evidence that would win the Macron's defamation case against Candace Owens. This could have been over simply, in a matter of five minutes of their time. Why haven't they done that? I don't know.
As for your fact checking, it has been terrible. You accuse me of saying something when in reality all I did was share a link that was relative to the case you brought up. I have no idea whether or not Brigette is a man or woman, I have no evidence one way or the other and I have no way of confirming the veracity of any evidence. Accusing people of hacking the tax records would be far more convincing to me if Brigette Macron also included the DNA from a cheek swab. There is no need for all this drama and so the more drama there is without that DNA makes me more and more suspicious that something is rotten in Paris.
Sigh.
- You post a video stating "Candace Owens Was RIGHT?! French Gov Admits Brigitte Macron Is A MAN!", which is BLATANTLY FALSE. The French government has not admitted Macron is a man and Candace Owens has not been proven right.
- I post actual news articles which state her tax account was hacked and the hackers identified. That is a valid counterpoint to the video you posted.
You never answered my question: Are you saying that questioning your posts [including posted videos] is censoring? Yes or no.
Of course it isn't.
What I am saying is that their lawsuit for defamation would probably be worth $10 million or maybe even $100 million. All you need to do to win this is do a cheek swab, takes five minutes of your time. They obviously care enough to sue Candace Owens, so why not simply do the the cheek swab and collect your $100 million for five minutes of your time?
When you question liars a common tactic is to often protest strongly without actually providing the simplest proof that the claim is wrong. The more the Macron's complain without doing this simple little proof the more I am inclined to feel that Candace may be right.
As for the President of France getting someone to say the tax office was hacked, I am indifferent to that. Maybe it was hacked, maybe it wasn't, but either way it is irrelevant to proving that Brigette has been defamed. If they would simply provide a DNA sample then everyone, including myself, can side with Brigette and cast our aspersions on Candace for her defamation. At that point the "hacking of the tax documents" would be interesting.
All I was saying concerning you is that your objections to this story being posted when it relates to the case that you brought up seemed over the top. Any reasonable person would agree the story is relevant, regardless of what the truth is. Also any reasonable person would understand that there is a very simple way for the Macron's to put all of this speculation to bed and for some reason, as much as they make a big deal over this, they haven't even done such a simple thing.
That is not over the top but your attacks on me were. I didn't do anything other than post this story, I had not stated any opinions one way or the other.
However, since we are talking about this, in my opinion there are two possible normal responses. In one the Macron's shrug it off. When asked about it they simply say "who is Candace Owens" and treat her like a nobody and her claim as trivial.
The other reasonable response is to sue Candace for defamation. However, once you have sued I would hold a press conference with the lawyer explaining how horrible this statement was and say that to prove that it is false and defamatory you will have your client give a cheek swab with Candace's attorney present, etc. You would also announce that you are suing for $100 million and the money will be given to some wonderful charity in France guaranteed to get the public fully behind you.
The Macron's have done neither. They are suing for defamation, but no cheek swab. Everything else they do and say, in my opinion, is simply a distraction. You can choose to ignore Candace or you can choose to be offended at Candace. But if you are offended at her claim and say it is false then do the cheek swab and give the money to a beloved charity.
Also judging Candace at this stage is too early in my opinion. She gets her day in court, once it is proven that this was a false claim, then by all means cast aspersions on her. But anyone trying to rush to judgment on this, that is a red flag to me.
- Status