I love everybody bro
But no, seriously, I see no reason to believe they ordered the hack, or that they believed the passwords would continue the illegal exploitation of private information.
I see no reason why people who shared the hacked data of a Nazi website would be prosecuted as if they are malicious hackers themselves.
So, why?
The real answer to all of this is just decentralization - this was the intention of the Constitution, I believe, and the very model of American government.
I would suggest that we have always wanted uprisings against the government which is ruled by corrupt, "middle of the road" people, right, so there should be a loose alliance between the grassroots right wing and the grassroots left wing that fight for policies that are ideological and based on principle.
It's the centrists, who govern through practicality and concerns of the immediate future, that are the greatest stumbling blocks to change. They have obligations to the elites - the ideological left/right do not have any such obligations.
I disagree vehemently with Trump on his views of Muslims and his ideas about Israel, of course, but the guy certainly is an enemy of the establishment and floats out ideas that are radical and haven't been talked about in decades, like his 10% tariff tax plan.
These are real starting points for change.
BTW, I am not really a conventional leftist - I am a Libertarian, and you probably got that from some of our arguments, but I want to come out and say it... I do nto want to be seen here like PRETENDING to be a conventional leftist and thus undermining discussion.
Nah, an insurrection is what was happening in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (and happening rightfully so).
If what occurred on J6 was an insurrection, it would have been explicitly violent or had a real organized plan for the literal overthrow of the government.
Even the ridiculous plan organized by the Proud Boys was not really an insurrection even though it involved demanding a re-vote (or a re-vote after a recount) because it ultimately wanted to preserve democratic norms, and the fools who came up with it sincerely believed that democracy was completely undermined by the last election... Which, arguably, it was.
Employing non-lethal means to occupy a place as a protest seems reasonable, doesn't it? This is what people did after the killing of George Floyd.
I imagine that some do pay for it, while others don't.
I've learned there's a huge variety in compensation for Priests, as well. In places like Greece, where it is the state religion, Priests are government employees, I believe, and they get some fixed amount as public servants, while in much of the world it all depends on the local parish. Many priests have to continue working in the world to pay their bills.
I am not sure if there has been a case at my church where we have crowdfunded a casket but I know we have people pay something like $25 USD a year to be buried in the Church cemetery, which is an absolute steal.
Poor people here are universally cremated.
The most annoying aspect of this is when you know actual information has to be out there, but it is being drowned out by dozens of sites reposting the less relevant and low quality information... And then you go to search in another language and you see substandard machine translations of all the garbage you were just fleeing, lol.
I consider it to be alarming because it can encourage people to choose cremation unnecessarily, just because it fits the budget. I would not take away or mock anyone's choice to cremate if that really is their first choice...
But I think it's upsetting for Orthodox Christians and other groups that require burial and would like to have a dignified casket at an affordable price. Just like how I sometimes feel bothered thinking about *the cost of burial plots." The idea of being fleeced of a significant part of a modest inheritance through the funerary process is really off-putting.
I suppose my definition is the one from the Oxford dictionary:
an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence:
J6 cannot meet such a burden since it was not an organized attempt and it certainly wasn't violent in the way that a real move to overthrow the government would be, only violent in the sense that any disorganized protest can be.
... And while some people can toss around the word insurrection, you notice that there is no serious charge against Trump on this, because there can be no charge, since he said nothing nor does any other evidence exists which show he incited anyone to any illegal act, let alone an attempt to overthrow the government. This is only possible through assumption & interpretation of what happened that it was even an 'insurrection.'
That's a mere interpretation of what happened that would never stand up in a court of law, hence why no formal charges have been brought. It's completely speculative.
Which is exactly why we can't remove him from ballots or refer to it as an insurrection.
Remember the Iraq War? We referred to the opposition after Hussein fell as terrorists (not very accurate, very lame Zioconservative take), or as insurgents, which is accurate.
Insurgency implies some long term armed resistance. It can't refer to some impromptu riot on the police lines.
Ummm… but what about all the men in the bible with many wives. There was no one man one wife thing in almost the entire Bible. Almost all of the people who are touted to be amazing examples of God’s peopel… were polygamists… and since that wasn’t enough, they would have the concubines on the side. Point that out and they run away.
There's several points in the Gospel where Christ points at a departure from this though, right, like in Matthew 19 and Matthew 22, but the most poignant passage is 1 Corinthians 7:
2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
The purpose of getting married is the relief of sexual lust - and since we are talking about just relieving it, the idea of having multiple wives or concubines on the side is a perversion of this. We can even look at the story of King David and Bathsheba as an example of why you shouldn't covet moaaarr wamen. It has been pointed out before that, like, adultery and lust are so powerful and pertinent that 2 of the 10 commandments are about it...
So i would say that one of the clarifications that exist, and one of the new usherings in of Christianity, is strict monogamy, and also praise for monasticism...
Pretty garbage takes here: we have the good, properly motivated group that votes for good guys and the bad people who are attached to the superficial and illusions...
This would not be different from a conservative analyzing the left as motivated by prestige/status (proper virtue signaling as approved by academia/mass media) and material gain through democrat policies, while the right is motivated by reason and real values, true philosophy, etc. Something I think we've heard done...
Pathologizing your political opponents is absolutely never a good look whether left or right does it.
I will not say that there are aspects of the above that are not true, however, just as how some leftists are very performative and only concerned with appearing correct and receiving accolades from people they admire. But to really suggest the majority of Trump voters (which are conservatives in general) are not motivated by their own principles and visions is just demonizing your opponents.