I never trust a woman (or man) with a hyphenated last name, at least not initially. It's just something I've learned from experience. I can't fully explain the correlation, but it's near 100% so I find it a useful filter.
These women are almost always liberals. Not sure if they have daddy issues or something. Trying to buy their dad's love by keeping his name when marrying. It's weird but there is nearly a 100 percent correlation to these women being evil.
I've seen it many times and avoid two last name women every chance I can.
In addition to life, I noticed many of the corrupt election officials were women with two last names. I should have kept a list for comment threads like these.
Some women choose to keep the maiden name for legit reasons. It is not uncommon for a woman to keep a maiden name for professional reasons, based on a family business reputation, for example.
But, I do agree that the double-name thing was promoted largely as part of the fem-lib (empowered women) movement, which was also used as a social wedge (useful idiots) in American society by communist insurgents.
She had established a very prominent reputation in her field under her first husband's name so when we got married she hyphenated her name for anything work related.
I’ll say the quiet part out loud. Women should not hold political office. And whether they should have the vote is questionable. There are the few that would do fine, of course. But most women, and I’ve known MANY in my life, would not. Even the New Testament makes this clear. Look at all the left/liberal protests — mostly women. Even George Orwell warned against this in 1984.
Barrett was picked because she's a she, and the republican party wanted to polish up it's image with women voters by appointing a she. Trump was coerced into picking her. She was not a merit based pick, and Trump himself is quoted as stating (prior to announcing Barret) that he wasn't sure who his next SCOTUS pick would be, but "it's going to be woman." Party image over merit- this is what we earn for having the traitorous "republican" party as allies.
It's perfectly possible to pick a meritorious woman for the role. The fact Trump didn't suggests that wasn't his goal, or that he actually fucked up. Take your pick.
Picking a candidate based on identity only becomes a problem when merit isn't considered at all, as the left does it, or when there actually isn't a good person to pick at all because the identity criteria are too strict, as the left also does it (i.e. black trans woman that's gay and is married to an Asian man).
There is nothing asinine about stating facts. I do understand how one could [wrongly] assume such a statement to be so, if they do not understand the role of congress in what we errantly refer to as "presidential appointments," and the US senate confirmation process.
Too many people wrongly assume that these appointments are all a presidents doing, but they are not. It is technically a political misnomer to call any appointments made by a president a "presidential appointment," if that appointment requires senate confirmation. <~~~The US senate has the ultimate authority for who actually gets appointed, not the president.
It is very important to understand that all president's have one hand tied behind their back by the senate confirmation process before they ever even announce a nomination. A president cannot "pick" anyone who the senate will not confirm; the senate has as much say in the "pick" process as the president.
All of those SCOTUS turds that Trump "appointed" were in fact confirmed by Mitch McConnell and the senate establishment, and they hold at least an equal share of the credit for those "presidential" appointments as the president does.
TL;DR A president cannot, and does not "pick" a candidate without the US senate approving of that pick, before it is even made.
What a disappointment Amy Coney Barrett has been... her double last name should have clued me in that she was a fake conservative-
I never trust a woman (or man) with a hyphenated last name, at least not initially. It's just something I've learned from experience. I can't fully explain the correlation, but it's near 100% so I find it a useful filter.
Never trust a guy with a "man-bun" or a pony tail tied with a rubber band.
I wear my long hair with a head sock hate me lol
I agree 💯%
These women are almost always liberals. Not sure if they have daddy issues or something. Trying to buy their dad's love by keeping his name when marrying. It's weird but there is nearly a 100 percent correlation to these women being evil.
I've seen it many times and avoid two last name women every chance I can.
In addition to life, I noticed many of the corrupt election officials were women with two last names. I should have kept a list for comment threads like these.
Some women choose to keep the maiden name for legit reasons. It is not uncommon for a woman to keep a maiden name for professional reasons, based on a family business reputation, for example.
But, I do agree that the double-name thing was promoted largely as part of the fem-lib (empowered women) movement, which was also used as a social wedge (useful idiots) in American society by communist insurgents.
My late wife did this.
She had established a very prominent reputation in her field under her first husband's name so when we got married she hyphenated her name for anything work related.
But legally she had my last name only.
So, riding the coat-tails of your dad's name? That again is very liberal.. so yeah, I stand by my statement.. hyphenated names are normally Libs...
I wouldn’t say all are evil but all my friends who hyphenated their last names after getting married are now divorced.
You are right, not all are evil. It's just an axiom I've learned to trust.
Not surprised at all that they are divorced. To me, not taking the man's last name is a sign of lack of commitment to the new life that is marriage.
Two become one (but I'm keeping my daddy's last name!).
A friend of mine pointed this out about a year ago to me and so far it's proven to be pretty correct.
I’ll say the quiet part out loud. Women should not hold political office. And whether they should have the vote is questionable. There are the few that would do fine, of course. But most women, and I’ve known MANY in my life, would not. Even the New Testament makes this clear. Look at all the left/liberal protests — mostly women. Even George Orwell warned against this in 1984.
My wife actually agrees with this. She admits that women are too emotionally driven and shouldn’t vote or hold office.
My wife agrees and she's one of the few that actually does deserve to vote.
Thank your for your comment and testimony to your wife’s grace and wisdom. You are a blessed man.
LOL. Are you like 100 years old?
a big part of me is about 2000 years old 😉
Giving up their last name for their man's is an act of submission and strong independent feminists don't submit to no man.
I was just thinking the same. We knew Roberts was a cabal puppet, but she is the turd in the punch bowl that no one suspected.
Should have known just from her virtue signaling adoptions.
Yes the adoptions sealed it for me .
Yes. When I saw the trophy adoptions I knew she was trash. All those kids and a high level job that keeps you too busy. Bad.
walnut sauce
Amy Phoney-Parrot.
Barrett was picked because she's a she, and the republican party wanted to polish up it's image with women voters by appointing a she. Trump was coerced into picking her. She was not a merit based pick, and Trump himself is quoted as stating (prior to announcing Barret) that he wasn't sure who his next SCOTUS pick would be, but "it's going to be woman." Party image over merit- this is what we earn for having the traitorous "republican" party as allies.
It's perfectly possible to pick a meritorious woman for the role. The fact Trump didn't suggests that wasn't his goal, or that he actually fucked up. Take your pick.
Picking a candidate based on identity only becomes a problem when merit isn't considered at all, as the left does it, or when there actually isn't a good person to pick at all because the identity criteria are too strict, as the left also does it (i.e. black trans woman that's gay and is married to an Asian man).
cue misheard lyric: "Secret Aaaasian man, secret Aaaasian man..." Your description in parentheses is spot on fren!!!
She was picked for her stance on Roe v Wade.
Im gonna wait until this plays out before I make assinine assertions like Trump was coerced.
There is nothing asinine about stating facts. I do understand how one could [wrongly] assume such a statement to be so, if they do not understand the role of congress in what we errantly refer to as "presidential appointments," and the US senate confirmation process.
Too many people wrongly assume that these appointments are all a presidents doing, but they are not. It is technically a political misnomer to call any appointments made by a president a "presidential appointment," if that appointment requires senate confirmation. <~~~The US senate has the ultimate authority for who actually gets appointed, not the president.
It is very important to understand that all president's have one hand tied behind their back by the senate confirmation process before they ever even announce a nomination. A president cannot "pick" anyone who the senate will not confirm; the senate has as much say in the "pick" process as the president.
All of those SCOTUS turds that Trump "appointed" were in fact confirmed by Mitch McConnell and the senate establishment, and they hold at least an equal share of the credit for those "presidential" appointments as the president does.
TL;DR A president cannot, and does not "pick" a candidate without the US senate approving of that pick, before it is even made.
She lives in a Communist Commune for goodness sakes. She's left of Chairman Mao.
I realize you are right about that statement, but it makes me feel like doing a Homer Simpson face smack and saying, "DOH!"