Pastor Mark Burns? ========= Outed for padding his resume.
Diamond & Silk? ====== Died of Heart Disease (Diamond)
Sheriff David Clark?
Omarosa Manigault Newman?
Don King?
Ali Alexander? ====== Prosecution Coop-agreement post January 6th and banned from Social Media?
Kanye? ========Lost over $1 to $1.5 Billion dollars in banned social media outbursts.
Darrell Scott (Cleveland Pastor)?
Pastor Marvin Winans Jr., Detroit?
Paris Dennard? ======== Fired from RNC
Ben Carson?
Stacey Dash? ====== Lost her Black card and has since reformed. Or has she?
Herman Cain? ===== Deceased
Candace Owens? ==== Fired
Larry Elder? ============ Couldn't win a State-wide office. Still grifting off Conservatives.
Katrina Pierson?
Herschel Walker? ========== Failed senate bid. Not a viable candidate for any office.
Tim Scott? ===================== Might run for president as a Republican (DJT won't allow that)
SCJ Clarence Thomas? ========== Riding High, off of a Billionaire's money.
Edited:
Forgot Ben Carson
SCJ Clarence Thomas
Jason Whitlock
Byron Donalds
[β] whynotwriteme (6175) 10 minutes ago
Why even make such a list
The list was done as a query to what has happened to the POC who supported DJT. Are they out-front supporting him? Did they achieve their own individual goals from supporting him? Are they still vigorously supporting him?
and especially, why use Bold to highlight the ones who died?
The bold is used to highlight text.
That's gloating, man.
Do you even know what the word Gloating means? Here, allow the internet and a dictionary to help you: Dwelling on one's own success or another's misfortune with smugness or malignant pleasure:
So, do you firmly understand that there isn't a single thing that I said, or typed, or intimated that even remotely suggested smugness or pleasure?
reply share
What I understand is that you were gloating and when I pointed it out, you backpedaled and denied it.
Those two died and you got some sort of satisfaction out of it because they supported Trump instead of the Democrats you think they are obliged to support. That is why you highlighted their deaths. Gloating. Yes sir.
[β] whynotwriteme (6176) 5 minutes ago
What I understand is that you were gloating and when I pointed it out, you backpedaled and denied it.
What you understand and what you are typing are two different things. Maybe you felt I was gloating but you've yet to show your homework and point out what it was I said or did that met the definition of gloating or was even corroborated by your own definition of what you think gloating means.
I used a BOLD font means I am gloating? I used a bold font in this response to you. Where is the gloat??
Those two died and you got some sort of satisfaction out of it because they supported Trump instead of the Democrats you think they are obliged to support.
Show me in what I typed that demonstrates or even states some sort of satisfaction? Do it!! Please, PLEASE show me where it is stated or implied that I am somehow satisfied?! You can't and you never will.
You are no mind reader, and you can't read anyone's heart. I don't have to backpedal on anything that I have stated or justify anything to you. Your heart is so dark in going there that you've already telegraphed what you think, believe, and feel. Projection is not a useful attribute for you to attempt to use. Projection tells more about you when you attempt to use it.
I'll accept your apology for being wrong.
I wasn't gloating. Death isn't something you should gloat about. I am anti-death penalty for a reason.
That is why you highlighted their deaths. Gloating. Yes sir.
One last point to you.
This is a silly accusation and debate (Hill) for you to die on. reply share
I stand by what I said. You were gloating over their deaths because they supported Trump. You highlighted the fact they were dead in bold letters because you feel they deserved to die for their political opinions.
[β] whynotwriteme (6177) 2 minutes ago
I stand by what I said.
You can stand, sit, walk, or lie down over what you said. It doesn't change anything. I wasn't even trying to change your mind or your feelings. Clearly truth and facts are meaningless to you. Especially when you are wrong.
You were gloating over their deaths because they supported Trump.
Nope! And this denial also doesn't suit you well. This single post is a paper-trail of truth-serum against your wrongness.
You highlighted the fact they were dead in bold letters because you feel they deserved to die for their political opinions.
Nice bit of OVER projection on your part. Have you wished Death and Destruction to people opposed or different to your political beliefs or aspirations? I haven't. My posting history is quite clear along with my posting conscious. Do you have a clean bill of posting-health whynotwriteme? Do you? Do you? Should we check?
Methinks thou doth protest and project TOO much!!
It's your hill, and you're the one dying on it.
I see nothing but fields of green and smooth sailing.
You're the one writing frantic, novel-length posts in order to backpedal on your gloating over the deaths of people of color whose politics conflict with your own.
reply share
[β] whynotwriteme (6178) 5 minutes ago
Pot, meet kettle.
You're the one writing frantic, novel-length posts in order to backpedal on your gloating over the deaths of people of color whose politics conflict with your own.
Again, reading AND comprehension are probably lost on you. Show me in a posting that I am backpedaling? Do you always use words or phrases that you don't know the meaning of?
Pot, meet Kettle
is an informal and humorous phrase that is used to highlight a situation in which a person accuses someone of or criticizes someone for something of which they themselves are guilty.
I am accusing you of not knowing the meaning of Gloating, you are the pot. Where is my Kettle? reply share
I see you have reached the bottom of your arsenal.
The fact remains, you were gloating over the deaths of Diamond and Herman Caine and now that you've been called out on it, you are backpedaling and also trying to distract from your original problematic post with immense posts making the feeble attempt to claim I don't know the meaning of gloating and backpedaling. All you are doing is making your own hole deeper.
No amount of obfuscation can change this. You've outed yourself as the worst kind of hypocrite and racist: Someone who only values people of color when they can back up your preferred party with votes. Otherwise, you hold them in contempt and wish them dead.
[β] whynotwriteme (6181) 40 minutes ago
I see you have reached the bottom of your arsenal.
I don't have an arsenal, what I have is a conversation. You on the other hand have a narrative that you are more than willing to progress whether it is necessary or not to even be said.
The fact remains, you were gloating over the deaths of Diamond and Herman Caine and now that you've been called out on it, you are backpedaling and also trying to distract from your original problematic post
Uh, no, and NOPE What you state isn't a fact.
What you have is an opinion and or interpretation or feeling or maybe even an impression. What you don't have is a fact. You're also an unreliable story-teller as to what transpires in a conversation and or debate. π You make things up as you think fits your narrative. I haven't then or ever have gloated over the deaths of Cain and Lynette Hardaway (Diamond). Your faux-outrage over something that wasn't said and or implied speaks volume as to how you feel. I'm not worried because I'm sure you'll reveal more. π€£ P.S. It's Herman Cain and not Caine. At least type the man's name correctly and show him some respect. π
Speaking Truth to Power you do seem to bring up their deaths a lot in this back-n-forth.
with immense posts making the feeble attempt to claim I don't know the meaning of gloating and backpedaling.
Like I said, you seem NOT to know the meaning of backpedaling or just how to use it correctly.
All you are doing is making your own hole deeper.
You've picked this hill to die on and now you've moved on to a hole to hide in. Me? Nothing but smooth sailing.
No amount of obfuscation can change this.
How am I obfuscating when I have stayed clear, focused and to the point? I haven't gloated over anything and YOU can't show that I have.
You've outed yourself as the worst kind of hypocrite
Now I have OUTED myself? Talk about doubling-down on a narrative that you just wanted to espouse!! Now I am a hypocrite? (Name call much) or are you just judgy-judgy because it makes you feel good? Got plenty of stones for that glass house you dwell in?
and racist: Someone who only values people of color when they can back up your preferred party with votes.
Let that black heartlessness freak flag fly. Do you feel better getting that off your chest?
Otherwise, you hold them in contempt and wish them dead.
Look at the words you use, the lines you draw and how you speak of others. Go back and check ANYTHING that I have ever typed. You won't find ANYTHING like that.
You project EXACTLY what you think and feel.
You'll NEVER apologize, and you lack simple self-awareness.
reply share
[β] whynotwriteme (6183) a minute ago
Another novel in the best-selling "Frantic Denial" series.
What was it you said? "Methinks thou doth protest and project TOO much!!"
LOL.
What makes my response "Frantic" and clearly there is nothing for me to deny. You've made an ill-advised accusation and followed that up with additional ill-advised accusations.
I've updated the original post and added SCJ Clarence Thomas. Nothing bold there to say about him, positive or negative!
reply share
[β] whynotwriteme (6192) 3 hours ago
You're writing this constant stream of huge, pointless screeds to throw up a smokescreen over what you did in your original post.
Hmmmm, let's digest that. My original post is still there.
Everything in the post remains along with the Bold formatting. The additional responses are to you and to anyone else who bothers to read the exchange. You deem my responses as pointless because you read with your eyes closed, you listen with your ears covered, and you think with the feeling of bad-energy. Re-read what you type. Nothing but bad ju-ju energy.
You are also prone to being judgy-judgy. Tsk, Tsk, tsk. When you know better you should learn to do better.
Again, no hill, just smooth sailing, and a clear sky.
reply share
I certainly hope you are better at handling disputes in real life, because if this is the limits of your abilities, you would be better off remaining home with mama.
Your faked adoption of a "taking the high road" stance is very weak and would get you nowhere in a face-to-face debate. At home in your room, you can pretend otherwise.
And you still haven't done anything but lie and misdirect about the glee you have taken in the deaths of those Trump supporting people of color.
[β] whynotwriteme (6193) an hour ago
I certainly hope you are better at handling disputes in real life, because if this is the limits of your abilities, you would be better off remaining home with mama.
No, you don't hope that at all. Why make up some silly statement like that? It again shows your dark heart and empty character.
Your faked adoption of a "taking the high road" stance is very weak and would get you nowhere in a face-to-face debate. At home in your room, you can pretend otherwise.
I've offered you a Win-Win solution, I've suggested an off-ramp, I've used the Put-Up or Shut-Up approach and you still refuse to apologize for being wrong.
You'd be better suited deleting your posts because your own words just don't serve you well. You do realize this is a public forum in which everyone can see that you are disingenuous, don't you?
And you still haven't done anything but lie and misdirect about the glee you have taken in the deaths of those Trump supporting people of color.
What have I lied about? Please point me to where there is a lie. You're one unintentionally funny poster. You've gone through Gloating to Satisfaction and now over to Glee.
Oh, let's check a response that I had with another poster on death
[β] xanthas (1709) 2 hours ago
And one member of the Diamond and Silk duo.
Let's not turn this list into a Deadpool but yes I will make that update. YIKES!!
That sure doesn't sound like Glee to me. π
reply share
Bless your heart. You're seeking validation from me that you exist. No worries, "I see you"!π
Without a doubt, you are one of the most "special" people I have ever interacted with here on Moviechat. I hope you will be OK, and can handle whatever is affecting you.
I genuinely feel a bit guilty over getting you worked up into this state.
reply share
Without a doubt, you are one of the most "special" people I have ever interacted with here on Moviechat. I hope you will be OK, and can handle whatever is affecting you.
Looks like SCJ Clarence Thomas won't have to answer for his largesse lifestyle.
reply share
[β] Corbell (10995) 6 months ago
I don't know about that, but if it grows to the point that it can't be dismissed, that will be an important milestone right there.
Right now, our...civil discourse is TERRIBLE.
DJT and his non-comedic opening act at MSG isn't doing the GOP any favors. That and the whole JD Vance with he Hitler comments. Or was that John Kelly? π½π€£ reply share
[β] HarveyManFredSin (4877) a year ago
Terrible human-beings, but no less Black than Obama or Kamala Harris, just because they're assholes.
Another MovieChat-Agent-Provocateur disappears. I wonder if the poster is okay. I don't think he/she was from the USofA though. Not that it mattered. π½π€
reply share
Did many of these POCs ever have any true access to the reins of power with DJT or even any intellectual sway or social access to people of color that warranted any exposure by the media?
Permanent fixture, Candance Owens though still hangs on through Grifting off of a Right-Leaning audience wanting to hear demonization of all things Quote-Black-Unquote.
[β] Corbell (10400) 9 months ago
It is telling that you consider only the "intellectual sway" said "poc" could have, with regard to "PEOPLE OF COLOR", I hear, Candice Owens, or Larry Elder talk, the last thing that I care about, is if or how many black people agree with them.
Looks like none of these DEI's merited consideration as a VP selection for DJT. π€π½
reply share
On what grounds do you call LARRY ELDER or CANDICE OWENS, "DEIs"?
Just because of their skin color? LOL.
i see their "intellectual sway" in the power of their ideas and their words. Your belief that they got what their prominence due to their skin color is you projecting your way of doing shit.
It has nothing to do with us, over here.
You were just extremely racist. Look in a mirror buddy.
Lol. So you are allowed to think someone of color gets there position or clout because of their skin color but no one else is allowed to think that about anyone who is right wing? Yeah no. She gets a platform because she fits the right's dream. She is young, attractive fast talking, a woman and black. She checks all the boxes. Candace is a joke who has been exposed many times as a fraud and a liar. Anybody who thinks Candace Owens is intelligent is an idiot.
Let me turn that around on you. YOU deny that anyone I point to for getting their position because of the color of their skin, but suddenly now, you can see it in this case?
Think. What is different here, that makes you think that THIS is a real "dei" case when all the rest you dismissed and were a complete fucking asshole about.
Trump is way too old to be president again and he's a 34 times convicted felon. Why are you so stupid that you still worship Trump? I love seeing you cry hard so here, have a tissue, Cupcake. You should get used to saying "Madam President" because it's coming. π€£
Nope. You make a claim that anyone of color is hired due to dei. The issue is you want me to take your generalization and claim as if it is a fact. I never denied that it could occur I just am not going to take your claim as if it's a fact. It's your job to prove your claim. If you can't then it's best not to make the claim.
So now I am going to play your game. I am going to make a claim and generalizations and you need to accept it as a fact. If you challenge or question it I'm going to throw a hissy fit like you do. Back to my original point though before you attempted to deflect. What is different here? Why isn't Owens a dei in your mind? Oh that's right because she is spewing the bullshit you want to hear. She is conservative therefore since she is conservative it's impossible for them to do dei stuff as well. That's only limited to your enemies pulling that move.
Just because she is doing a good job at spewing what you want to hear doesn't mean anything. That doesn't mean she can't be a dei hire. That's the stupidest thing you have ever said. I can turn that right back around on you. If a black woman who was liberal spewed things the left wanted to hear and got support that means she was not a dei hire?
It isn't merit based. You hired her because of her color and gender that's why the right gives her a bigger platform that's obvious. If she was white you wouldn't be giving her as big of a platform. So no it's no different you deceitful prick.
Owens only has status and power because of the fact that conservatives like what she has to say. There is not specific "JOB" that she has that makes her a successful political commentator.
I don't "hire her" because of her color and gender. She has a big platform because we like what she has to say.
That's the way we roll ove here in "conservative land".
She used to pal around with Charlie Kirk. He checks, as far as I know, NO BOXES, yet we love him just as much, if not more than Owens.
Ben Shapiro, fills a similar role. He is "jewish" which some people consider a box to "check". I don't. And I don't think very many of my fellow conservatives do either. We are aware of it, but that is not why we like or don't like him.
You seem to have a real problem understanding simple shit.
NOw, didn't Biden publicly state that he wanted a diversity hire before he picked harris for the vp slot?
That's him deciding that he wanted diversity and then finding someone from the pool he has already defined by skin color or gender or what have you, NOT by merit.
That' DEI. That's Affrimative Action.
You support that. Which is a common position. So, why are you being so weird about this?
They like what she has to say because by her being black and a woman it is a huge bonus. You use that as a means to dismiss any claim of racism. See we like Candace Owens! You like her because she will dance to your tune and is black. You guys pulled this same stunt with Jesse Lee Peterson. A known slow idiot who isn't all there but why does he have a platform? Oh yeah because he's black and will dance to your tune yet again.
Also no. Kirk has clout but Owens is more popular and we all know the reason why.
Again Ben Shapiro fits boxes. You guys aren't above that bullshit either. So drop the holier than though stance. It's bullshit and you know it.
Nope we aren't diverting to Biden. We are staying on Candace Owens. Your deflection is dismissed.
1. We don't need Owens to dismiss your claims of racism.
2. I had the feeling that Kirk was bigger, but maybe you are correct. As to why? I have no idea. I don't really agree with you that she is. Kirk is just, fantastic.
3. Ben Shapiro is freaking brilliant. That is his defining characteristic. If you think that people like me, like him BECASUE he is jewish, you are.... not right in the head.
4. The thread topic is HARRIS being dei. I'm happy to discuss owens, but you lefties have brought them up to try to... show equivilence. So, mentioning harris again for comparison is quite called for. So save your sass for something that gives a fuck.
1. At a guess, someone was pointing to some point she made using logic, but all you saw was a black woman. That's a problem with YOU, not us.
2. I don't know that owens is bigger than kirk. I think you are probably wrong on that.
3. I see plenty of right wing people that are out there trying to get attention, but just not good enough compared to the competition.
4. Jesse Lee Peterson? He is certainly far more clever than he claims. I like the way he dismisses the idiocy of his guests right to their face.
5. Except, I didn't just disagree with you, I explained quite clearly why you were wrong and you have failed to seriously challenge my logic or points at all. ALSO, you dismissing Biden's words, when he was hte one that hired Harris, is you being... a troll.
Lol right. No it's because if someone points out holes in your logic that's your get out of jail free card. If I always supported black women then I wouldn't question anything Owens said because she is black. I don't care who spews bullshit if it's bullshit it's bullshit.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. She has more subscribers on YouTube than Kirk does. She gets featured far more on big msm news feeds than he does as well.
And some get attention because they check off a certain box. Like Owens and Shapiro.
You ever see his debate with a reasonable leftist? Want me to link you to it and see how badly he did in the debate? It's in his own show also, right on his YouTube channel? Want to watch it or no?
Nope you only disagreed. We aren't talking about Biden you don't get to deflect to that.
1. What? I have no idea what you are talking about here.
2. If you say so. Sure, maybe. I find Kirk to be better than Owens but that is my personal take. I have no problem with other people disagreeing.
3. "Come for the tits, stay for the insightful discussion". I recall some youtuber saying that once. It's all driven by the reaction of the consumer. Their is no HR department or PR hack to push for DEI.
4. A "reasonable leftist"? Right. Sure, I'll check it out. Love to see this "reasonable leftist". lol.
5. This thread is about Harris being DEI. You whining like a fag, is just you being a fag.
You guessed as to why they point to Owens whenever someone calls them racist. She is their get out of jail free card.
It's not about who is better. I just looked it up Owens has more subscribers on YouTube. Check it for yourself. The argument is on who is more popular. I find both of them to be shills that aren't worth listening to.
Lol bullshit. Shapiro and Owens check off a box and it's obvious.
3. Obvious to YOU because that is how you judge people. You do realize that I and people like me are different than you, right?
4. The whole point of bringing up all the conservative talking heads, was to try to gin up some from of equivelence. That is not a justification to hide from the point of the thread. Harris is a DEI hire.
Yeah it is relevant because that was the original debate. No both are trash. Both are partisan hacks who i won't listen to. They are idiots.
Um no you do the same thing. Anytime a person of color is in a position of power you assume it is dei. You did this with Aerial and all you gave were assumptions and generalizations. No proof.
And Owens and Jesse Lee Peterson are dei hires as well. If it's ok for the right it's ok for the left. You watch the debate i provided or you too much of a coward to watch it?
1. It's your opinion on what people like me are thinking. I've told you my personal thoughts, and you dismissed it. There is nothing more to talk about. YOu are stonewalling like you always do.
2. I mentioned Kirk being better. Both are beloved and respected. You see race, conservatives seen intellectual leaders.
3. No, I don't. When Herman Cain was running and gaining support, I thought it was because he was a good candidate. I was quite annoyed when your lefty media dogpiled him on bullshit.
It is and your words did nothing to change my mind on that. I think you are a liar.
But Owens is more popular like I originally stated. Nope conservatives see shills that they can pay to gaslight the public. Owens has backed away from many debates. Why is that? She knows she would get creamed unless she has control of the platform. She exposed herself on Joe Rogan. She's an idiot. Anyone who supports Kanye West is an idiot.
Yeah you do. You assume any actor who is black such as Aerial is a dei hire. The only time you will excuse it is when it's someone who will say what you want to hear. If they do that then you will look past it.
1. Got it. You just know in your heart what people like me are thinking and nothing can change your mind.
2. You hate a conservative activist. We conservatives love her. YOu think it is becasue of her skin color. YOu just know that, because.... reasons.
3. Are you pretending to not remember that you had a little hissy fit everytime I pointed out that the studios and the whole film industry have been loudly and publicly stating their DEI policies and intent for years? YOu are just a troll boi talking shittalk.
When people give dumb reasons no it doesn't change my mind correct.
I don't like anyone who blindly shills for a side. Which is what Owens and Kirk both do. I prefer someone who is actually willing to criticize and be objective even towards the side they lean on. Owens and Kirk don't do that. They will bypass and excuse anything the right or Trump does. Oh no I have plenty of reasons. She's your get out of jail free card. Like I said earlier.
Nope remember you got mad that I didn't accept your claim as fact. If you can't prove your claim I don't have to believe it. Deal with that.
1. Judging a political commentator by the quality of her politcal commentary, is a "stupid reason" in your mind? LOL. Sure it is, you lying partisan troll boi.
2.You hate her because she is conservative. YOu just "know" that we love her because of her skin color. You are a faggot.
3. My claim about teh stated formal policies and intent of all the studios and film industry as a whole. Based on their public stated policies.
Her political commentary isn't good. So even if that's your claim it's still bad lol. You don't judge based on quality you judge based on if it's right wing or left wing. If it's right wing it's good, if it's left wing it's bad.
Nope I dislike her cause she is a shill.
Nope your claim was she was casted due to dei. That doesn't prove your claim.
1. Her commentary is great. You can't see it becasue you are full of hate for those different than you.
2. YOu hate her because she is a conservative.
3. You dismissed publicly stated policies of dei hiring by stupios and the industry as a whole, in a question about dei hiring. That is just you being a stonewalling troll boi.
Your opinion. I think her commentary is trash. She is a shill.
Nope there are other conservatives i respect who aren't shills. She isn't one of them I respect sorry.
Nope that doesn't prove your claim. You didn't say it was possible Aerial was hired due to dei. You stated it as a fact. Therefore it's on you to prove that claim. So I take it you never even looked at that Jesse Lee Peterson debate then?
2. I'm sure there are. Conservatives who are no longer relevant, or in some other way useful to you. You are a partisan hack.
3. YOu had a hissy fit when I cited the stated polices of the industry as though it was irrelevant. Hell as though it was taboo to cite it. YOu are just a troll boi.
[β] Corbell (10995) 3 months ago
She is "spewing" the stuff I and many other conservatives "want to hear" and is doing it well. Thus, we listen and like her videos and support her.
We are doing that, because as you said, she is saying what "we want to hear".
Does that mean that now Candace Owens is a DEI fire?
reply share
No stonewalling. You gave your opinion on her and I gave mine.
Your assumption is dismissed. The point stands I don't respect partisan hacks who won't call out corruption on their end. I'm partisan lol? You are the one who thinks Trump is a good candidate. I never once stated Biden was a good candidate. Both him and Trump were terrible choices.
That isn't relevant in proving your claim. That's something you just can't understand. If you state something as a fact it is on you to prove it. No assumptions or generalizations based on things don't count.
Looks like you didn't look at debate. More proof you are a biased idiot. Jesse Lee Peterson is a hack also.