People can’t change their last name when getting married here (they need to go through the whole process like anyone else wanting to change their name if they want to do it) and it’s such a non issue. Your ID has your address, show your ID proving you live at the same address and they hand you the package.
It’s just a bunch of problems the US created for itself by not having any actual ID.
Changing your last name when getting married is dumb and we finally have the proof of it.
Why the global rollout if the rest of the world doesn’t agree with the change? Just to please Trump?
“and not get caught”
At some point some US citizens will have to choose how they plan to die exactly, because doing nothing in the face of Nazis will lead to them dying anyway.
There’s a huge chunk of the internet that needs to learn a lesson and understand that being hosted in the USA isn’t a good idea.
Same with people working on things that are illegal from a copyright perspective (video games remakes for example). Post from behind a VPN using a nickname, share via torrent or host somewhere where they don’t care about US copyright laws… People don’t learn and get a C&D letter they could have dodged…
Oh really?
That’s even worse! Billionaires shouldn’t exist and if they do they should live in constant fear for their lives.
Not really, you take all those politicians, divide them in categories (left, center, right, populist or not) and check the % of lies per tweets for each category.
Hell, we see tons of keyboard warriors wanting to eat the rich but how many billionaires have been shot in the last year?
One.
OP would be the first to keep his job in their situation.
It’s not violence in the eyes of the law, which is the point of view we were talking about until you jumped in, if you want to have a conversation about that then go ahead, start a conversation about how “free speech law is wrong and hate speech is violent and should be banned” and I’ll be on your side, but this is not this conversation.
Ok…
He’s still what people voted for by voting for Trump.
Same difference, the people Trump chooses to manage things are all people indirectly voted in as he didn’t hide the fact that they were the kind of people he would choose.
If you notice, the discussion has been about the law from the get go, not enforcement (although in this case this specific law was enforced properly). I was correcting someone who said that free speech doesn’t protect hate speech in the US, but it does.
So when Republican farmers say “I didn’t vote for that” when they see ICE coming to pick up migrants working in fields you also agree with them because it’s not something that was on the ballot itself to vote on, right? You won’t tell them “That’s what you voted for by voting for Trump” right? Same for Republicans who will lose their social security benefits, right? They didn’t vote for that when ejecting Trump, it wasn’t on the ballot!
If the law is the same for everyone no matter who they say they hate then the law isn’t overly permissive to a certain group of haters.
Then you don’t understand how elections work.
Use whatever example you want, it’s always the same thing. It’s a discussion about laws and you keep mixing your feelings in the equation. In the eyes of the law there’s a difference between stating your hate X and stating you want to be violent towards X, one is legal, the other isn’t, no matter which group X is.
That still leaves those who didn’t vote against it being idiots 🤷
It was clear he was part of Trump’s plan so yeah, plenty of people voted for him.
That’s like saying no one voted for migrant deportations because what they voted for was a person, not their program, well no, if something is part of their program then that’s something you’re voting for.
Fun fact, oil can be brought in from other countries and when you control all the access to the Pacific ocean you’re the one who controls the negotiations.
Yep but the US never adopted a national ID that makes sense and that’s where it becomes an issue