You're the one who decided to go with personal attacks. If you want to insult someone at least give them the courtesy of reading their username.
Also you're on the silly meme community why are you taking this so seriously?
hildegarde
joined 3 months ago
If you actually had the reading comprehension that you claim you would have noticed that only men were surveyed.
If you want to make that shirt I'll buy one. I don't think I'm quoting someone by accident. Have at it if you're inspired.
Winning a point is a very low bar. You don't have to beat her. You don't have to win a set or a game. You just have to score a single point. All it takes is a single mistake from your opponent to win a point. With enough time even the best will make a mistake, and tennis matches are long.
The shortest possible game is 4 points. A set without a tie breaker has 6 games. A women's tournament match is best 2 sets of 3. So at minimum a match of tennis has 48 points. You only need one.
If you're passible enough to return the ball some of the time, and do a valid serve you will probably win a point at some point. She may be one of the best tennis players of all time, but she's not infallible. Its really unlikely she wouldn't mess up at least once.
Whenever a headline is written to imply something without saying it, don't trust it.
The words in the headline are not false, but they chose to cover this story nationally because they can write a headline that strongly implies that there was an attempt on the president's life because they know that will entice a click.
If there was evidence of the exciting implication that would be the headline.
A depressed person attempting suicide by cop isn't something relevant to a national audience, but people will click because of the headline.
This is a transcript of a meeting. Those are words that trump did say, but this screenshot is cropped deliberately to hide that fact.
This is one of the typical lies that trump is known to make in speeches. This isn't a whitehouse staff member publishing those words as a written statement the office stands behind.
This proposed law is very narrowly tailored to the handling of records about court proceedings. It is unjust the way you are treated by this country, but this bill is not that, at least not in the ways you describe.
If ice or any other law enforcement agency wanted the documents at issue, they could only get them through a court order. This would be unchanged.
If you need these records to defend yourself in a court, both you and your lawyer are entitled to that information with or without this bill.
This bill will not change your state ID. The process for changing names and gender markers on state IDs is unchanged.
If you want to change the name on your ID, you have to submit the court order yourself. You also have the right to not update your IDs. None of this would be changed by this bill.
CA allows for birth certificate gender marker changes by self declaration. For $52 and a notary you can get a copy of a new birth certificate with a different gender marker.
Name changes require you to attach a court ordered name change document.
Different parts of the government handle different things. Courts don't do birth certificates.
I don't see how this law would do that.
Existing law requires the court to limit access to these records to specified individuals, including, among others, the minor, the minor’s parents, and their attorneys.
the records currently are very restricted. this law would make it even more so. This would allow minors to change their name without their parents being entitled to that information.
If you choose to share that information about yourself this law won't effect you. This law will stop some people close to you from having access to your records through the court.
Unless I'm missing something this bill won't invalidate passports, but it will protect trans people from transphobic relatives or others.
Only you and your lawyer can access those if this goes into effect.
"contributed to" vs "killing me instantly"
I wish I had the reading comprehension to find the obvious difference between these two statements, but alas it is impossible no one is that comprehensive.