Yes, a passport can be used to get a RealID if you're a citizen. But non-citizens can get RealIDs too. Which is the whole point of this conversation: a RealID is not proof of citizenship. It's proof that you have legal status in the USA.

Your username seems oddly reflective.

I forgot to mention: if you so wish, you can in fact be tried without legal representation for a felony or misdemeanor, provided you can convince the judge that you know the risks and are competent to represent yourself pro se. It's a really bad idea though.

What are you talking about? You most definitely have the right to have a lawyer represent you for an immigration hearing or traffic ticket. The government just won't pay for one, unless you're mentally disabled.

To obtain a ReaIID, you do not need citizenship, but you do need to demonstrate legal status in the country. That could include one of the following:

- birth certificate from a US state;
- US passport;
- proof of permanent residency (green card); or
- employment authorization documents (i.e., visas or work permits.)

An electric bill or property-tax bill may show proof of residency but it does not show legal status.

Stallone is an actor, not a boxer. He played a boxer in a movie series about one. Ever heard of make-up?

That was the whole point of my post.

For you especially, it seems.

I am forced to agree that 60 billion dollars does not equal 99 percent. Units don't match for one. Learn how to math.

As for him pledging to give away 99% of his wealth (which I admit $60B is not) ... note that he's not dead yet. You don't know what his plans are for the future, or in his will.

You sound like a Christian Nationalist.

You can't just redefine things to conform to your own opinion. Here, this may help.

And now I'm done with this conversation. Over and out.

I beg to differ on both counts.

A secular society separates church and state. In other words, governmental and public affairs are not determined on religious grounds.

And freedom of belief necessarily includes freedom from belief, i.e., the absence thereof.

Cherry-pick much? There are lots of examples -- in history and present day -- of secular societies that didn't and don't follow the brutal practices of regimes like Mao's China and Hitler's Germany.

And history also has plenty of examples of wars inspired by religion.

This post was rightly down-modded, but I must respond to a couple of things.

I don't care whether it has value. I care whether it's true. And there are other ways to obtain the "value of moral and ethical teachings" -- ones that don't involve believing in an imaginary being. Ever heard of secular humanism, for example?

Predictable false-dilemma thinking coming from a True Believer: either you fear God or you value nothing. No, there are alternatives: plenty of secular philosophies that value people and strive to reduce harm and/or increase flourishing -- goals that aim for morality without any supernatural beings required.

This. I can see unions (or in general, trade organizations) playing a role in certifying workers. But training them in a comprehensive fashion could be too much of a distraction from their mission of providing representation for workers after they are done with training.

It is a very successful union indeed that can get a "no layoffs" clause in a collective agreement. Generally that just doesn't happen.

My guess is that the union wants to ensure that incumbents are protected as much as possible. But they won't be immune to layoffs.

You clipped the part of my post where I address potential negligence on Google's part, and then you appear to raise the issue as though I hadn't. Here's a reminder of what I posted:

You are confident that Google "worked really hard" to keep this from happening. And yet it did. So, it appears to me that Google's precautions were inadequate.

Even if Google made a good-faith effort to keep their LMM from making defamatory statements, the courts could still find them negligent. Because their efforts weren't enough to stop their LLM from making defamatory statements, and it is their LLM.

I am pretty sure you are a human. I have seen many of your posts here, and often find myself agreeing with you. And I'm also pretty sure we both know how to think.

And that's why I'm confident in assuming you know what it means to speak figuratively. Which is what I was doing.