Patrick Bet-David Poll Shows 70% Support Candace Owens Over Turning Point USA in Investigation Debate
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Candace Owens Contrasts Helen Comparatore and Erika Kirk: Different Widows, Different Grief, Different Questions
8:22
Lionel Nation Warns Utah Valley University Faces Legal Nightmare From Charlie Kirk Wrongful Death Case
1:03:43
Graham Allen Exposes the Truth About Candace Owens After Pedophilia Accusations and Erika Kirk Attacks
1:01:44
Patrick Bet-David Poll Shows 70% Support Candace Owens Over Turning Point USA in Investigation Debate
Patrick Bet-David conducted a poll among his audience regarding the heated debate between Candace Owens and Turning Point USA over questioning official narratives. The results were striking: 70% sided with Owens, 30% with Turning Point USA. This segment examines why even audiences from different ideological backgrounds overwhelmingly support asking critical questions about events with inconsistencies, and how this aligns with principles once championed by those now calling for silence. The discussion draws parallels between historical events and current investigations, emphasizing the importance of persistent inquiry regardless of pressure to conform.
Poll Results Reveal Overwhelming Support for Questioning Official Narratives
Patrick Bet-David decided to poll his own audience amid the controversy surrounding calls for Candace Owens to stop her investigations. The poll asked a simple question: Whose side are you on in the Turning Point USA versus Candace Owens debate? The results were striking and unexpected for many observers.
The outcome showed Candace Owens receiving 70% support compared to Turning Point USA's 30%. This margin proved significant, especially considering the source of the poll and the sustained criticism Owens has faced from numerous conservative media figures.
The Significance of Public Opinion Against Establishment Voices
Commentator Evan Kilgore noted something remarkable about the situation: "What's astonishing to me, every single big conservative influencer has essentially been anti-Candace for months. They dedicate entire segments of their shows to condemn her and post daily criticizing her. And she is still resonating in a more positive light than TPUSA."
This observation highlights a disconnect between establishment conservative voices and their audiences. Despite coordinated efforts across multiple platforms to discredit her inquiries, public support remains firmly on the side of asking questions rather than accepting official explanations.
Historical Precedent for Questioning Government Narratives
The discussion recalled past statements about the importance of questioning official accounts of major events. Specifically referenced were comments about the JFK assassination and the numerous inconsistencies in the official narrative:
"I think the best reading of what happened there is who wanted JFK dead the most. Again, a lot of people said Israel wanted JFK dead. I'd love to hear that argument, but definitely Lyndon Baines Johnson and parts of our own government and the Cubans wanted him dead."
The historical analysis continued: "There were like 15 or 20 things that happened that day that were inexcusable." These included changing the parade route, using an open-air convertible, and Lyndon B. Johnson's decision not to ride alongside President Kennedy.
Parallels to Recent Events
The segment drew explicit comparisons between historical inconsistencies and recent events, noting similar patterns of unexplained security failures. The discussion highlighted multiple concerning elements:
Security was not positioned on accessible rooftops
False statements were made about drone surveillance
Members of the crowd spotted threats that trained security personnel allegedly missed
Crime scene evidence was rapidly removed or destroyed
Official accounts contained contradictions and unexplained gaps
One particularly pointed observation asked: "How come at all the shootings people in the crowd point out the suspect? At Butler the cops don't get it." This question emphasized the recurring pattern where ordinary citizens observe threats that supposedly escape the notice of professional security personnel.
The Pattern of FBI Foreknowledge
The discussion also addressed a troubling pattern in various incidents: "People called the FBI for most of them. Most of the terrible shootings, someone said it's not like the thing where like we thought he was just a quiet guy. No, they knew the guy was a problem. Nine times out of 10 and went to the FBI and guess what happened? Nothing except a tragedy."
This pattern raises fundamental questions about institutional competence and accountability that extend beyond any single incident.
The Principle of Persistent Inquiry
The segment emphasized lessons from recent history about the importance of maintaining skepticism: "I learned during COVID. I learned when they told us that it came from a bat in the Himalayas. I learned when they told us the vaccine was safe and effective. I learned when they told us that Ivermectin was horsepaste that you better keep asking questions because it's the only thing that keeps us free."
This principle was presented as applying across multiple contexts: "You should have learned it during Russia gate. You should have learned it during Ukraine war. You should have learned it during COVID. And you should know it now. You should always keep asking questions. Always."
Criticism of Those Demanding Silence
Strong criticism was directed at those pressuring investigators to cease their inquiries: "Anybody shaming you for asking logical questions is a scumbag who is on the wrong side of this and is being paid to lie to you. And they're called mockingbird media. And if they're not being paid to lie to you, they're the dumbest people in the world."
The segment specifically called out the apparent contradiction between past statements supporting investigation and current demands for silence: "The scumbags are the people at TPUSA who make it sound like asking logical questions is some kind of toxic outrage. Those are the scumbags. The scumbags are people getting paid to make social media posts trying to get people to stop asking questions about this."
The Core Argument for Truth-Seeking
The fundamental position was summarized with reference to past statements about the JFK assassination: "The more important question is not oh who did it? We have to first acknowledge that more than one person did it. Once we acknowledge that more than one person did it then we can expose our government to have lied to us about the JFK assassination which then I think will sober a lot of us about trusting the government in the future."
This framework was presented as the appropriate model for approaching any event with significant inconsistencies in official accounts. The emphasis remained on establishing basic facts and identifying contradictions rather than accepting explanations that fail to address obvious questions.
Public Support Despite Coordinated Opposition
The poll results demonstrated that despite months of criticism from prominent voices, public support for investigation remains strong. This suggests that audiences are increasingly making independent judgments rather than following media guidance, particularly when official narratives contain obvious gaps or contradictions.
The segment concluded by emphasizing that the real investigation is being conducted by independent researchers and journalists who refuse to accept incomplete or contradictory official accounts, regardless of pressure to conform or remain silent.
