All of the DC swamp keep different last names from their spouse to increase the illusion that they aren't all part of the same inner circle fuck bucket
Nope that is an individual. A bucket is like a bucket full of crabs. The dc-media-deepstate-continuum is like a giant incestuous container of pubic lice.
Journos sleep with politicians, politicians sleep with career feds, career feds sleep with TVmedia, TVmedia sleep with career Intel, career Intel sleep with Journos; and if you're not career swamp they will all try to fuck you in the ass.
Hate you’re making me defend the practice, but she probably worked in the field for a number of years becoming known as Kyra Phillips. If she changed it, she would be pretty much starting over and losing any ‘brand value’ associated with her reporting over the years. Imagine if McDonalds decided to change their name — you would be wondering who the fuck X is that just popped up all over the place
Also anyone who publishes in professional journals. It makes it hard to find a person's earlier published research, and confirm it's the same author, if they change their name midstream. I had a friend from college who got married to a high school sweetheart and hyphenated her last name with his. Got her PhD in psychology, published a number of articles and also held several teaching positions. Then she and her husband amicably divorced, but she kept her hyphenated name and continued publishing and teaching under that name.
It's also a swamp corruption thing (not just in DC but in other very corrupt towns) for 120 years now. Certainly something which should be and can be remedied.
There were laws passed about this in the past, including specifically for Federal Employees when this really got rampant as Marxism spread 100 years ago. Some of these were either ignored, or overturned by (mostly FDR's and other leftie bad) judges.
The contract of marriage has many aspects of it. Some are basically can be seen like "rights" which are added to the union(couple) and others are removal of rights. It's the joining of two individuals into one union; and this means certain aspects of law/society get joined between the two. This joining and merger of rights (and the attack by not removing rights), while under great attack for a few generations now; but the joining of last names was one of those things, and should be again.
No, it's because of branding. I've known even conservative wives who were doctors, or lawyers who kept their original surnames because they had established a brand and didn't want to hurt their business.
However, in law and medicine the legal names are more important so officially they probably are what they say.
On the other hand the media will often use "stage names", so while legally they may share the same last name as their husband, publicly they'll continue to use their original surname because of branding.
So what was different about the debate? He's done it countless times before so what's one more?
It was easy to defend him when they would bring up Charlottesville; he completely condemned white supremacists and anyone who said otherwise was fully aware they were a liar.
So why didn't he just say the exact same thing he said then? Now, instead of pointing to a clear statement against racism, we have to defend his silence. I just don't understand the play here on his part.
Edit: So you can downvote but no one can explain it to me? Sounds about right.
They didn't ask him to denounce the militia or Proud Boys. They asked him to denounce white supremacy. If he's done it before, why was it not a stupid question any of those times? Why was he not a puppet of the media those times? It's a simple question; if he's done it before, why would he not do it at the debate?
You're getting downvoted because you refuse to put in a modicum of effort in watching the source material.
He does condemn it in the debates, and then asks Chris Wallace to specify which groups, to which Biden says the Proud Boys, implying they're white supremacists.
Wallace in his question also erroneously conflates militia groups with white supremacy, when militias are enshrined in our constitution which shows particular contempt for the second amendment.
I've watched the whole debate 3 or 4 times through. He asks what he wants to call them and Wallace says white supremacists. He's said it before, why wouldn't he say it then?
Do you really want a puppet as a president? Simon says "could you say the words black lives matter?".. Simon says "can you say her life mattered?". Simon says "could you say white supremacy is bad". When does it stop? Trump has already condemned groups like this over 20 times, at this point they may as well be shouting "dance monkey dance!" and hoping for him to dance. Maybe you'd be the press' bitch, but some people don't roll that way.
How does it make him a puppet? He's supposed to be up there arguing his platform. They asked if his platform includes denouncing white supremacy. It does, so he should have said so.
"He's a bitch if he says what he believes."
No, I'd NEVER say that. You're putting words in my mouth to "win" whatever the fuck this is.
You asked why you were getting downvoted and I gave you my personal answer for why I downvoted your comment. Please note that I do not know what is in Trump's mind and cannot answer with any certainty why he does what he does. If you want to know what was going on in his mind, I'm sorry, but you have to go ask him.
Perhaps he was distracted by having to talk to two people. Perhaps he reached the end of his patience to answer these types of questions. Perhaps he doesn't like being in a submissive position. Perhaps he doesn't want to appear to be in a submissive position to the voters. Perhaps he was too busy thinking of what questions they'll ask AFTER he condemns these groups that he wasn't able to respond the way he would have otherwise. Perhaps he is okay with being in a submissive position but only with people like Hannity that don't have an ulterior purpose for asking the question. Etc etc. Perhaps others can come up with dozens of other possible explanations.
Read Catch 22. I'd say we need more people that can stand up to the left's "loyalty oaths" and shout "Gimme eat!"
Maybe you'd be the press' bitch, but some people don't roll that way.
Does Trump believe white supremacists should be condemned? Yes. Did they ask him to say exactly that? Yes. Did you say right there in that quote that if he said it, it made him a bitch? Yes, yes you did.
Don't tell me I'm putting words in your mouth just because you realize you said something stupid.
Trump has already denounced white supremacy more times than any other human being ever has or should ever have to. Now they want him to slander innocent Americans as white supremacists.
It's a subliminal tactic they are using, and it's effective on morons. The premise they set by asking the question is that Trump is in fact a supporter of White Supremacy. This is an NLP framing technique they are using.
Why don't they have the same name? Is it a stupid libtard thing?
All of the DC swamp keep different last names from their spouse to increase the illusion that they aren't all part of the same inner circle fuck bucket
I've never heard or seen the term "fuck bucket" until today. I thought it to be my original derogatory term from 25 or so years ago.
Kamala Harris is a fuck bucket.
Anyway, nice observation. Good day.
I made it up because it felt like the right slang in this context. I'm trying to give up swearing too so I need to wrist slap and do better.
Fuck bucket? I like it.
I like it more
Is that similar to a cum dumpster ?
Nope that is an individual. A bucket is like a bucket full of crabs. The dc-media-deepstate-continuum is like a giant incestuous container of pubic lice.
lol fuck bucket
Journos sleep with politicians, politicians sleep with career feds, career feds sleep with TVmedia, TVmedia sleep with career Intel, career Intel sleep with Journos; and if you're not career swamp they will all try to fuck you in the ass.
Hate you’re making me defend the practice, but she probably worked in the field for a number of years becoming known as Kyra Phillips. If she changed it, she would be pretty much starting over and losing any ‘brand value’ associated with her reporting over the years. Imagine if McDonalds decided to change their name — you would be wondering who the fuck X is that just popped up all over the place
Exactly this, I've seen a number of doctors and lawyers among others who kept it because their name was used as branding.
Also anyone who publishes in professional journals. It makes it hard to find a person's earlier published research, and confirm it's the same author, if they change their name midstream. I had a friend from college who got married to a high school sweetheart and hyphenated her last name with his. Got her PhD in psychology, published a number of articles and also held several teaching positions. Then she and her husband amicably divorced, but she kept her hyphenated name and continued publishing and teaching under that name.
Absolutely
It's also a swamp corruption thing (not just in DC but in other very corrupt towns) for 120 years now. Certainly something which should be and can be remedied.
How? Have the government regulate last names?
There were laws passed about this in the past, including specifically for Federal Employees when this really got rampant as Marxism spread 100 years ago. Some of these were either ignored, or overturned by (mostly FDR's and other leftie bad) judges.
The contract of marriage has many aspects of it. Some are basically can be seen like "rights" which are added to the union(couple) and others are removal of rights. It's the joining of two individuals into one union; and this means certain aspects of law/society get joined between the two. This joining and merger of rights (and the attack by not removing rights), while under great attack for a few generations now; but the joining of last names was one of those things, and should be again.
No, it's because of branding. I've known even conservative wives who were doctors, or lawyers who kept their original surnames because they had established a brand and didn't want to hurt their business.
However, in law and medicine the legal names are more important so officially they probably are what they say.
On the other hand the media will often use "stage names", so while legally they may share the same last name as their husband, publicly they'll continue to use their original surname because of branding.
So what was different about the debate? He's done it countless times before so what's one more?
It was easy to defend him when they would bring up Charlottesville; he completely condemned white supremacists and anyone who said otherwise was fully aware they were a liar.
So why didn't he just say the exact same thing he said then? Now, instead of pointing to a clear statement against racism, we have to defend his silence. I just don't understand the play here on his part.
Edit: So you can downvote but no one can explain it to me? Sounds about right.
They didn't ask him to denounce the militia or Proud Boys. They asked him to denounce white supremacy. If he's done it before, why was it not a stupid question any of those times? Why was he not a puppet of the media those times? It's a simple question; if he's done it before, why would he not do it at the debate?
You're getting downvoted because you refuse to put in a modicum of effort in watching the source material.
He does condemn it in the debates, and then asks Chris Wallace to specify which groups, to which Biden says the Proud Boys, implying they're white supremacists.
Wallace in his question also erroneously conflates militia groups with white supremacy, when militias are enshrined in our constitution which shows particular contempt for the second amendment.
I've watched the whole debate 3 or 4 times through. He asks what he wants to call them and Wallace says white supremacists. He's said it before, why wouldn't he say it then?
Do you really want a puppet as a president? Simon says "could you say the words black lives matter?".. Simon says "can you say her life mattered?". Simon says "could you say white supremacy is bad". When does it stop? Trump has already condemned groups like this over 20 times, at this point they may as well be shouting "dance monkey dance!" and hoping for him to dance. Maybe you'd be the press' bitch, but some people don't roll that way.
How does it make him a puppet? He's supposed to be up there arguing his platform. They asked if his platform includes denouncing white supremacy. It does, so he should have said so.
My reference to the "Simon says" game was pretty explicit, don't you think?
He's a bitch if he says what he believes. Got it, you're an idiot.
"He's a bitch if he says what he believes." No, I'd NEVER say that. You're putting words in my mouth to "win" whatever the fuck this is.
You asked why you were getting downvoted and I gave you my personal answer for why I downvoted your comment. Please note that I do not know what is in Trump's mind and cannot answer with any certainty why he does what he does. If you want to know what was going on in his mind, I'm sorry, but you have to go ask him.
Perhaps he was distracted by having to talk to two people. Perhaps he reached the end of his patience to answer these types of questions. Perhaps he doesn't like being in a submissive position. Perhaps he doesn't want to appear to be in a submissive position to the voters. Perhaps he was too busy thinking of what questions they'll ask AFTER he condemns these groups that he wasn't able to respond the way he would have otherwise. Perhaps he is okay with being in a submissive position but only with people like Hannity that don't have an ulterior purpose for asking the question. Etc etc. Perhaps others can come up with dozens of other possible explanations.
Read Catch 22. I'd say we need more people that can stand up to the left's "loyalty oaths" and shout "Gimme eat!"
Does Trump believe white supremacists should be condemned? Yes. Did they ask him to say exactly that? Yes. Did you say right there in that quote that if he said it, it made him a bitch? Yes, yes you did.
Don't tell me I'm putting words in your mouth just because you realize you said something stupid.
TRUMP SHOULD START FILING LAWSUITS
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY GONNA STOP
I could refer him to his wife's boyfriend with regards to how big a cuck he is.
John's wife's boyfriend broke up with her after he lost respect for her when he found out who her husband was...
OH, I thought we were pretending that the Dem establishment leaders, ex Obama Staffers and Democrat Stream Media weren't all related to each other.
Ya know, for constantly raggin' on hillbillies being inbred, Their side seems way more incestuous.
Oof! Hide your face, John Roberts.
We have bigger issues at hand than mUh [email protected] [email protected]! Let's talk about blacks shooting children in the head at point-blank.
Right.
She needs to be carved into Mt. Rushmore
Trump has already denounced white supremacy more times than any other human being ever has or should ever have to. Now they want him to slander innocent Americans as white supremacists.
Nice bitch slap
Still offering to Make the WH Press Corps Great Again.
John Roberts refuses to denounce child touchers
Dracarys!!!! He's roasted!
I think having a name John Roberts automatically means you're a cuck.
That's great!
John Roberts said he's tired of all the backlash. What a piece of shit human.
Maybe she can't fully commit to this loser, or for business reasons
They'll never let this go as long as Trump is GEOTUS. They see this as a sticky issue...
They disregard the dozens of instances where our President on video denounced racism...
So dishonest...its evil
It's a subliminal tactic they are using, and it's effective on morons. The premise they set by asking the question is that Trump is in fact a supporter of White Supremacy. This is an NLP framing technique they are using.