Ok, so we are back to name-calling and I'm back to being a woman. You and Fuentes make a pair. 

Regarding Candace, you have no argument. But then, you never do. You just name-call and trash people's names without a thread of evidence. That is your method. And what is very revealing is that you hate upon people who have a reputation of trying to be the best Christians they can be. You hate upon people who are upfront, kind, charitable, and who, to the best of their understanding are trying to actively fight back against the anti-Christs who threaten our souls. You cannot even recognize a nice person. You really can't. And why? Because you are so consumed with pulling people down in order to puff yourself up. That Laddie, is the very definition of weakness.

For those that listen to your ugly spew, Candace Owens is happily married to a lovely Englishman who thinks the world of her. Far from being "any husband's worst nightmare" George Farmer - a devoted Catholic - asked her to marry him after only weeks of meeting her. They both take their faith seriously, are publicly and actively pro-life, intend to home-school their children and mix with equally nice people. I don't know what dust bin you are pulling your trash from, but it's time to stop being homeless and get back home to the Church where you can have some hope of growing up.

Fellow lovers of Christ. Christ is King.

Look at the whole picture and stop acting like a protestant yourself. Mass, rosary, encouraging protestants to venerate Our Lady more, having their marriage validated in a Catholic Church. These are recent occurrences leading up to his death and were moving in what direction? Tell me, where was his 'free will' taking him? Endangering his life by refusing Isra eli money, bribes, and threats. Willing to face the truth and speak out. There is clearly grace at work there. And while I am not claiming he is in heaven, we can be hopeful - because of these exterior markers - that he is not damned; that spiritually he had united himself to the one, true Church. And therefore, in charity, we should pray for his soul. If you don't want to, that's up to you, but at least accord him and his family the respect they deserve in their time of suffering.

The manipulative use of talking points leverages several psychological principles and cognitive biases to influence an audience. By repeating simple, pre-packaged messages, manipulators can bypass critical thinking and implant ideas or narratives that serve their own agenda.


Cognitive psychology and information processing

• The mere-exposure effect: This well-docuмented phenomenon shows that people tend to develop a preference for things simply because they are familiar with them. The constant repetition of a talking point, even a false one, increases its familiarity and, in turn, its perceived validity. This repeated, "fleeting encounter" creates a sense of warmth or trustworthiness toward the idea.
• Cognitive fluency: Repeated exposure to a talking point makes it easier for the brain to process. The mind equates this processing ease with positive affect and truth. A simple, consistent, and easy-to-understand message is often preferred over a complex one that requires critical thought. Talking points are carefully crafted to be clear and concise, making them easily digestible.
• Information overload: Manipulators can overwhelm an audience with a high volume of repetitive messages, a tactic sometimes called the "fire hose of falsehood". This can cause cognitive paralysis, making it difficult for people to critically evaluate the information. The result is that people often accept the manipulator's narrative as the path of least resistance.

Social and motivational psychology

• Social proof (the bandwagon effect): This principle states that people tend to adopt beliefs and behaviors that they see others, particularly a large group, adopting. Talking points often frame an idea as being widely popular ("millions of people support this candidate!"), triggering a psychological need to conform.
• The creation of in-groups and out-groups: Talking points can simplify complex issues into an "us versus them" binary. This taps into a fundamental social identity theory, where people adopt positions to align with their in-group and reject those associated with an out-group. Dehumanizing the out-group with a repeated term, such as calling people "rats," is an extreme example of this manipulation.
• Consistency and cognitive dissonance: Talking points can exploit the desire for cognitive consistency, where people avoid the discomfort of holding conflicting ideas. For example, if a talking point reinforces a prior belief, people will readily accept it and scrutinize information that challenges it, a phenomenon known as confirmation and disconfirmation bias.

Persuasive communication

• Framing: This is the process of presenting facts within a certain rhetorical "frame" to shift perception and influence how people think about an issue. For example, describing a welfare program as "helping people who have lost their jobs" evokes empathy, while referring to "the unemployed" can create a more abstract, "othered" image, decreasing empathy.
• Authority and credibility: Talking points are more persuasive when they come from a credible source, such as a perceived expert or a popular authority figure. The source's credibility is often used to instill trust and build rapport, making the repeated talking points more likely to be accepted.
• Emotional appeals: Talking points can use emotionally charged language to connect with an audience on a human level. Appealing to emotions like fear, hope, or anger can be more compelling than a purely logical argument and can bypass critical reasoning. For example, "flag waving" justifies an action by appealing to patriotism.

More emotional cope. it does not matter if he was in the process of converting because that is not the same actually being a Catholic. There have been many more and better people who died as catechumans and God allowed to die without baptism, they are lost and so is Kirk. We simply accept it as God's will as there is no salvation outside the Church. You on the other hand have denied the doctrines even when presented with quotes. This is really bad for your soul, if you wish to be saved yourself you cannot deny even ONE Catholic Doctrine.

• Emotional appeals: Talking points can use emotionally charged language to connect with an audience on a human level. Appealing to emotions like fear, hope, or anger can be more compelling than a purely logical argument and can bypass critical reasoning. For example, "flag waving" justifies an action by appealing to patriotism.

…And while I am not claiming he is in heaven, 

The "whole picture" is that Charlie Kirk died without abjuring his Protestant heresies and publicly converting to the true Faith. The exterior markers here that matter are whether or not those things happened, and they didn't. Membership in the Catholic Church is public. I can point to someone I know who is Catholic and say "they are a member of the Church". I can point to someone I know who is not Catholic and say "they are not a member of the Church".
When Charlie Kirk, a public figure, an Evangelical Protestant who held heretical views regarding the papacy, the sacraments, the Blessed Virgin, etc. was sitting in a chair at his event in Utah, moments before death, we could point to him and say "he is not a member of the Church", because he wasn't. Between that moment and several seconds later, when he was dead, there were no "exterior markers" to tell us that he suddenly became a member of the Church............

Shall we give you a lesson in fractions? For you have just cut out Mass, Rosary, Veneration to Our Lady, and the proven turning against his Israe-li payrollers, from the Whole. This leaves a fraction of the picture. Therefore, given the spiritual change - the spiritual sequence of events leading up to his murder, there is every possibility that in his heart and soul, he had united himself to the true faith. As such, while we cannot prove either way, we can pray for him in the hope that he had made that final step. It is not a sin to do so.

I think my main point, which you have completely ignored, in my previous comment summed it up perfectly. When Charlie Kirk was sitting in a chair at his event at UVU, one second before being shot, he was not a member of the Church.