Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In other news, here's another way that we're all doomed. As much as I dislike WikiLeaks for assisting Trump...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikileaks-cia-vault-7-julian-assange-year-zero-documents-download-spying-secrets-a7616031.html

[quote
Julian Assange claims that documents are the most comprehensive CIA release ever and are far larger than the Snowden files

WikiLeaks has published a huge trove of what appear to be CIA spying secrets.

The files are the most comprehensive release of US spying files ever made public, according to Julian Assange. In all, there are 8,761 documents that account for "the entire hacking capacity of the CIA", Mr Assange claimed in a release, and the trove is just the first of a series of "Vault 7" leaks.

Already, the files include far more pages than the Snowden files that exposed the vast hacking power of the NSA and other agencies.

In publishing the documents, WikiLeaks had ensured that the CIA had "lost control of its arsenal", he claimed. That included a range of software and exploits that if real could allow unparalleled control of computers around the world.

It includes software that could allow people to take control of the most popular consumer electronics products used today, claimed WikiLeaks.

"'Year Zero' introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones," the organisation said in a release.


The public files don't include the cyber weapons themselves, according to a statement. The organisation will refrain from distributing "armed" software "until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published", it said.

The files were made available by a source who intended for them to start a conversation about whether the CIA had gained too much power, according to the organisation.





"In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public, including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency," a release read. "The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons."

It also redacts the details of some of the names, locations and targets that are identified in the documents.

The organisation had teased the release in advance with strange messages about the release being "Year Zero", and references to "Vault 7". It had planned to release the files later on but that plan was thrown off when its press conference came under cyber attack, Mr Assange claimed.

WikiLeaks publishes huge trove of CIA spying documents

Still waiting for Assange to turn himself in, per the statement he made last year.


Also: WikiLeaks can't be trusted. Not after this election and the role they played in destabilizing it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Still waiting for Assange to turn himself in, per the statement he made last year.


Also: WikiLeaks can't be trusted. Not after this election and the role they played in destabilizing it.

How does their role in "destabilizing" the 2016 election impact the veracity of the information they post? Whether or not the DNC and Podesta emails harmed Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election has no bearing on the fact that the emails were actual emails. They were illegally obtained and likely had a negative impact on the Democratic party and nominee but that doesn't mean they weren't truthful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:



I see absolutely nothing wrong with introducing Historiography into high school level classes. I mean, just as the scientific method is absolutely fundamental to understanding the study of science, I think the same thing about history. I don't mean that high schoolers are necessarily ready to delve into the intricacies of marxist history compared to other schools of historical writing, but I absolutely do mean that reading actual excerpts from say, Ben Franklin's letters, or Tom Jefferson's writings and facilitating discussions, and beginning to form the foundation of what it is historians actually do would, IMO, help understanding history more better.

Oh I agree. But it's the focus I think that matters. Instead of teaching kids to repeat the contents of Federalist Paper #54, make them read it, the 3/5ths compromise, and some other relevant documents and teach them how those things come together to form the narrative construct we call "history." History does not exist on it's own. it's not something that just is. It's the product of thinking minds taking the evidence left to us by the past to create an explanation for how and why we got to where we are now

See if we actually did that, I wouldn't have to spend a decade explaining how "state's rights" is a bunch of bull gak 3-4 times a year because everyone would already have figured out that "States Rights" was invented first to defend slavery, and second to rehabilitate the Confederacy, systematic racism, and Jim Crow discrimination. People should have already learned that in high school cause it's really basic stuff. The only guy who still really makes arguments against it is a Marxist (historically and politically, a rare double whammy combo!). To which comes my second point; that these things only exist as an argument on behalf of modern American Nativism, namely Anglo-Christian White Protestant Americana to which some people interpret any deviation a "corruption" of our culture.

State's rights were created in the constitution and the bill of rights and are integral to the concept of federalism. Are you seriously arguing that states rights were "invented" to defend slavery? That is a blatantly false and dishonest argument. There has always been conflict and tension between the Federal and State governments centered on states' rights and Federal jurisdiction dating back long before the civil war and continuing right up until today. You can take umbrage at the people who claim that the Civil War was started over "states rights' instead of slavery but that is an entirely separate issue and does not in any way encapsulate states rights or invalidate their demonstrably real existence.

Prestor Jon wrote:

State's rights were created in the constitution and the bill of rights and are integral to the concept of federalism. Are you seriously arguing that states rights were "invented" to defend slavery? That is a blatantly false and dishonest argument. There has always been conflict and tension between the Federal and State governments centered on states' rights and Federal jurisdiction dating back long before the civil war and continuing right up until today. You can take umbrage at the people who claim that the Civil War was started over "states rights' instead of slavery but that is an entirely separate issue and does not in any way encapsulate states rights or invalidate their demonstrably real existence.

Yes... Even during the negotiations for the bill of rights, Southern States, who relied on slave labor, worried about the influence of Northern States, most of whom had slaves but were non-reliant on them. So in many ways, yes, "States Rights" were invented to defend slavery.

We wouldn't have the Constitution if it wasn't for numerous concessions included to secure and defend the institution of slavery.

Why do we still have people pretend that this isn't the case?

 Easy E wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


See if we actually did that, I wouldn't have to spend a decade explaining how "state's rights" is a bunch of bull gak 3-4 times a year because everyone would already have figured out that "States Rights" was invented first to defend slavery, and second to rehabilitate the Confederacy, systematic racism, and Jim Crow discrimination. People should have already learned that in high school cause it's really basic stuff. The only guy who still really makes arguments against it is a Marxist (historically and politically, a rare double whammy combo!). To which comes my second point; that these things only exist as an argument on behalf of modern American Nativism, namely Anglo-Christian White Protestant Americana to which some people interpret any deviation a "corruption" of our culture.

My kid is learning about the American Civil War in her school, and they brought in a bunch of speakers and guess what they were talking about.... State's Rights. I live in one of the "Unionist" of union states too.

We had to sit down and have a serious conversation about it. I loathe Southern Apologists for the Civil War.

Everything you really need to know about the cause of the ACW and its constitutional legality is contained in two sentences.

Article 1, Section 10. of the constitution of the USA.

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation;..."

Article 1, Section IX. of the constitution of the CSA.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of
property in negro slaves shall be passed."

 d-usa wrote:

Why do we still have people pretend that this isn't the case?

Because of our terrible school systems

Well... in less then a day, the non-GOP leadership is balking at RyanCare....

Doesn't look like Ryan will have the votes in the House.

Additionally, Rand Paul is saying it's DOA at the Senate, notwithstanding what the Turtle wants...

Finally, Trump's HHS Sec Tom Price said:

Tom Price calls health care bill a "work in progress" and "an important step" but won't say it's the "administration's bill"

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 7, 2017

Guess the plan ain't ready after all...

Dumbasses... you had six years.

Midterm is going to get ugly...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
We wouldn't have the Constitution if it wasn't for numerous concessions included to secure and defend the institution of slavery.

Why do we still have people pretend that this isn't the case?

That's not my read.

Just because it's used as justification during the slavery era doesn't render it a null & void philosophy today.

In fact, it's very much germane when discussing marijuana laws, sanctuary cities, etc...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Still waiting for Assange to turn himself in, per the statement he made last year.


Also: WikiLeaks can't be trusted. Not after this election and the role they played in destabilizing it.

How does their role in "destabilizing" the 2016 election impact the veracity of the information they post? Whether or not the DNC and Podesta emails harmed Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election has no bearing on the fact that the emails were actual emails.

Do we actually have that confirmed those were in fact the actual emails? That the emails were not tampered with or edited?

Because from what I've read, that was not the case.

They were illegally obtained and likely had a negative impact on the Democratic party and nominee but that doesn't mean they weren't truthful.

Their role in destabilizing the 2016 election impacts the veracity of the information they post in that it became BRUTALLY clear to anyone with a pulse and two brain cells to rub together that they were giving that information ahead of time to Trump's campaign. You'd see Trump's campaign go silent before that information would get leaked; and then boop all of a sudden they've got prepared statements and it's become the new talking points for Trump.

For all the whining people like Whembly did about someone giving Mrs. Clinton "the questions to the debate", the Trump campaign had the inside flipping track on when, what, and how leaked material was going to be published.

And to add to it, first thing today when the "CIA documents" got leaked there was (shock!) a huge piece in Russian media about how the CIA went after Russia for the "hacking scandal" with no proof.

But hey. You're just here to argue. Have fun with it.

 Kanluwen wrote:



For all the whining people like Whembly did about someone giving Mrs. Clinton "the questions to the debate", the Trump campaign had the inside flipping track on when, what, and how leaked material was going to be published.

You going to provide a source for that?

 whembly wrote:

Just because it's used as justification during the slavery era doesn't render it a null & void philosophy today.

In fact, it's very much germane when discussing marijuana laws, sanctuary cities, etc...

We all can point to "legitimate" uses of the Tenth, what was put forth earlier, was that you typically never see it used on legitimate issues, and instead it's only used as a dog-whistle or on "things I dont like"

In fact, I can point to a legitimate issue, and how "states rights" are used in the wrong way. I've seen a number of right leaning people put forth the idea that patrolling the border should be a State thing. Basically, "If Texas wants to shoot [insert racial/national xenophobic term here] for comin' across the border, then Texas should be able to shoot 'em." They are basically arguing that the Feds shouldn't be involved in border patrol. Now, you bring up Sanctuary Cities, and would you look at those same right leaning people blowing the feth up over it.

 whembly wrote:

Guess the plan ain't ready after all...

Dumbasses... you had six years.

Midterm is going to get ugly...

It's not like everybody here had been telling you that for those 6 years and even recently you pointed to Ryans "plan" as justification that there was a plan all set to go.

With this new revelation that 6 years was not enough time for the Republicans to come up with a workable solution are you going to accept that your statement that ACA should be repealed before the replacement plan is set in order to provide some arbitrary deadline is totally fething ludicrous?

 whembly wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:



For all the whining people like Whembly did about someone giving Mrs. Clinton "the questions to the debate", the Trump campaign had the inside flipping track on when, what, and how leaked material was going to be published.

You going to provide a source for that?

Sure. Bearing in mind that Roger Stone tweeted a bit more than that in regards to the matter, but he did also delete said tweets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Guess the plan ain't ready after all...

Dumbasses... you had six years.

Midterm is going to get ugly...

It's not like everybody here had been telling you that for those 6 years and even recently you pointed to Ryans "plan" as justification that there was a plan all set to go.

I just found it hilarious that they printed out the two bills and then tried to point at the stacks of paper as though that makes it somehow more viable?

"We used less paper--our plan is better!"

Or how about Chaffetz today "People are going to have to choose between that new iPhone or healthcare". Must be nice having the healthcare plan he has, because the one I have(a bare minimum catastrophic package) runs me $190-ish a month for one wellness visit a year.

I could buy multiple iPhones using the cost I accrue, just paying in and not really using my insurance.

I swear to God, the Republicans are witless when it comes to optics. The only thing truly obvious is the Republicans never had a plan because they never expected Trump to win. Morons.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Just because it's used as justification during the slavery era doesn't render it a null & void philosophy today.

In fact, it's very much germane when discussing marijuana laws, sanctuary cities, etc...

We all can point to "legitimate" uses of the Tenth, what was put forth earlier, was that you typically never see it used on legitimate issues, and instead it's only used as a dog-whistle or on "things I dont like"

In fact, I can point to a legitimate issue, and how "states rights" are used in the wrong way. I've seen a number of right leaning people put forth the idea that patrolling the border should be a State thing. Basically, "If Texas wants to shoot [insert racial/national xenophobic term here] for comin' across the border, then Texas should be able to shoot 'em." They are basically arguing that the Feds shouldn't be involved in border patrol. Now, you bring up Sanctuary Cities, and would you look at those same right leaning people blowing the feth up over it.

Well the boarder states righties are wrong at that position. The border is wholly a federal mandate.

As for Sanctuary Cities, again immigration policies and enforcement is fully a federal mandate. The feds is fully within their rights to use some federal $$$ to encourage participation (ie, the old speed limit back in the day).

 Breotan wrote:
I swear to God, the Republicans are witless when it comes to optics. The only thing truly obvious is the Republicans never had a plan because they never expected Trump to win. Morons.

Errr, shouldn't they have had a plan for the scenario that Trump wasn't their nominee? Considering that was meant to be super surprising?

The republicans are just not interested in actual governance except for their own pet projects like criminalising abortion and operate in environments which are toxic to actual research and studies which are both required to formulate good policy.

 whembly wrote:
Well... in less then a day, the non-GOP leadership is balking at RyanCare....

Doesn't look like Ryan will have the votes in the House.

Additionally, Rand Paul is saying it's DOA at the Senate, notwithstanding what the Turtle wants...

Finally, Trump's HHS Sec Tom Price said:

Tom Price calls health care bill a "work in progress" and "an important step" but won't say it's the "administration's bill"

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 7, 2017

Guess the plan ain't ready after all...

Dumbasses... you had six years.

Midterm is going to get ugly...

If they had a real, full plan, it would have been released long ago. Is it only just now that you are realizing that your party had no plan besides "Grr, repeal, grr"?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Guess the plan ain't ready after all...

Dumbasses... you had six years.

Midterm is going to get ugly...

It's not like everybody here had been telling you that for those 6 years and even recently you pointed to Ryans "plan" as justification that there was a plan all set to go.

With this new revelation that 6 years was not enough time for the Republicans to come up with a workable solution are you going to accept that your statement that ACA should be repealed before the replacement plan is set in order to provide some arbitrary deadline is totally fething ludicrous?

The original plan was two separate plans.

One bill to repeal it (ala, the one that landed on Obama's desk that he veto'ed).

The other was a plan based on Tom Price's or Rand Paul's plan that fully minimized federal intervention (ala, pre-ACA), but had specific new entitlements for those 20-30 million people who couldn't afford insurances.

This RyanCare plan is simply tweaking around the outside of the ACA.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Still waiting for Assange to turn himself in, per the statement he made last year.


Also: WikiLeaks can't be trusted. Not after this election and the role they played in destabilizing it.

How does their role in "destabilizing" the 2016 election impact the veracity of the information they post? Whether or not the DNC and Podesta emails harmed Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the election has no bearing on the fact that the emails were actual emails.

Do we actually have that confirmed those were in fact the actual emails? That the emails were not tampered with or edited?

Because from what I've read, that was not the case.

Not even Podesta had the 'nads to try and claim the emails were not real. There is no credible source they were tampered or edited.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

State's rights were created in the constitution and the bill of rights and are integral to the concept of federalism. Are you seriously arguing that states rights were "invented" to defend slavery? That is a blatantly false and dishonest argument. There has always been conflict and tension between the Federal and State governments centered on states' rights and Federal jurisdiction dating back long before the civil war and continuing right up until today. You can take umbrage at the people who claim that the Civil War was started over "states rights' instead of slavery but that is an entirely separate issue and does not in any way encapsulate states rights or invalidate their demonstrably real existence.

Yes... Even during the negotiations for the bill of rights, Southern States, who relied on slave labor, worried about the influence of Northern States, most of whom had slaves but were non-reliant on them. So in many ways, yes, "States Rights" were invented to defend slavery.

No they weren't. We were always going to be a union of semi autonomous states. That was never in doubt during the process of drafting the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. Yes southern slave owning states wanted states rights to include the right for states to legalize slavery within their borders but that's not the reason we have states rights. All 13 former colonies wanted to maintain a level of autonomy and be separate states. Non slave based states like Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, etc. weren't advocating that the colonies surrender their autonomy and form one large homogenous state under one government in opposition to slave owning states that wanted to preserve autonomy resulting in a slave driven compromise. We were always going to be a union of states, states were always going to have separate rights from the Federal government, that was going to happen even if we had abolished slavery back in 1787.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Reserved powers were created in the constitution and the bill of rights and are integral to the concept of federalism.

Fixed that for you.

Are you seriously arguing that Reserved Powers were "invented" to defend slavery?

Yes in part. The Tenth Amendment was written as an addition to the Constitution despite its own authors thinking it (and the rest of the bill of rights) were redundant and unnecessary. They obviously turned out to be wrong, because if not for those ten we wouldn't have some the freedoms we currently do, but that doesn't change why that particular Amendment was added and Slavery and the desire to protect it and the power of slave holders was a big issue in the writing of the Constitution. It's probably the most redundant Amendment in the first ten anyway, since the Supremacy Clause as defined by McCulloch v. Maryland basically resolved the issue of Federal and State powers from the onset until the 14th Amendment completely changed the game. The Tenth was pretty much included just to toss a bone to that class of people, as well as a few uppity northerners in Rhode Island who liked being the most corrupt state in the Union and didn't want the federal government stepping in and protecting anyone's rights. EDIT: Oh and want to bet what one of Rhode Island's best businesses was? Slaves. The Wolfe Brothers and John Brown (for whom Brown University is named) were three of the biggest slave traders in America because when you go back to the 18th century, Slavery wasn't just a Southern institution.

That is a blatantly false and dishonest argument

No. It's blatantly false and dishonest to go on like people always have and absolutely ignore where the term "States Rights" comes from, it's history of use in US politics, and the blatantly hypocrisy in how it continues to be used. There is no consistency among states rights advocates about where the line is for the right of the states and the right of the Federal government, because those advocates in truth don't give a gak about states rights. They never have. States Rights is nothing bug a nicer way to package "right to discriminate" for the masses and dupe well meaning people into supporting policies of exclusion.

There has always been conflict and tension between the Federal and State governments centered on states' rights and Federal jurisdiction dating back long before the civil war and continuing right up until today.

One guess what one of the leading issues was.

No they weren't.

Yes they were. Why do you think Virginia insisted on the 3/5ths Compromise to the point of threatening to leave if a resolution to the population disparity of Northern and Southern states wasn't written in?

We were always going to be a union of semi autonomous states.

The Anti-Federalist papers basically make this a fallicious notion from the get go. One of the biggest complaints against the new Constitution was that it was too centralized and would subsume the independence of the States (which it totally was going to do in the long run). Even back to the Articles of Confederation there was debate about whether there should be any centralized government uniting the Colonies, who were actually okay with tyranny on a state level.

Yes southern slave owning states wanted states rights to include the right for states to legalize slavery within their borders but that's not the reason we have states rights.

You're just conflating the Reserved Powers clause of the 10th with the States Rights concept, which is something States Rights advocates have been doing since the Nullification crisis.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/10-million-lose-health-insurance-182731710.html

Just proving themselves to be national embarrassments yet again

Between 6 million and 10 million people would lose health insurance coverage if a Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act becomes law, a new report estimates.

The top end of those losses, or 10 million people, is equal to half of the 20 million or so people who have gained coverage in the past seven years under Obamacare.

The sobering estimate came from S&P Global Ratings on Tuesday, less than a full day after House GOP leaders released their plan for gutting key elements of the ACA, and replacing it with new rules.

S&P Global Ratings said it expected that if the plan were approved, there would be a decline in enrollment in the individual health insurance plan market of between 2 million and 4 million people.

There also would be a decline of between 4 million and 6 million people in the nation's Medicaid system after 2020 to 2024, according to the report.

But profitability among U.S. insurers "will likely improve," the company said, pointing to the fact that the replacement plan "can result in an improved risk pool in the individual market."

What was that about Obamacare being a death panel for old people?

The report said that the replacement plan would likely increase the affordability of individual insurance plans for younger adults, and reduce the affordability of those plans "for the older population."

But profitability among U.S. insurers "will likely improve," the company said, pointing to the fact that the replacement plan "can result in an improved risk pool in the individual market."

I suspect this is the only part anyone will give a gak about. Who cares how many people are being extorted so long as the extorters are making money

 Ustrello wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/10-million-lose-health-insurance-182731710.html

Just proving themselves to be national embarrassments yet again

Between 6 million and 10 million people would lose health insurance coverage if a Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act becomes law, a new report estimates.

The top end of those losses, or 10 million people, is equal to half of the 20 million or so people who have gained coverage in the past seven years under Obamacare.

The sobering estimate came from S&P Global Ratings on Tuesday, less than a full day after House GOP leaders released their plan for gutting key elements of the ACA, and replacing it with new rules.

S&P Global Ratings said it expected that if the plan were approved, there would be a decline in enrollment in the individual health insurance plan market of between 2 million and 4 million people.

There also would be a decline of between 4 million and 6 million people in the nation's Medicaid system after 2020 to 2024, according to the report.

But profitability among U.S. insurers "will likely improve," the company said, pointing to the fact that the replacement plan "can result in an improved risk pool in the individual market."

What was that about Obamacare being a death panel for old people?

The report said that the replacement plan would likely increase the affordability of individual insurance plans for younger adults, and reduce the affordability of those plans "for the older population."

It's a great bill, the best bill.

Verviedi wrote:"If you don't implement this plan, your plan is doomed to death spiral!"
"But your plan death spirals even harder than mine..."
"FAKE NEWS! Republicare will never fail!"

If the plan plummets fast enough it won't have time to form a spiral before it hits rock bottom

Does this mean that Calvinball is over?

I think we're reaching the bit where Calvin's parents come home and unlock the door to let Rosalyn back in the house; any minute now, I'm expecting to hear about how bug-eyed space monsters for Pluto hiding among Syrian refugees made them screw everyone's healthcare over.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Still waiting for Assange to turn himself in, per the statement he made last year.


Also: WikiLeaks can't be trusted. Not after this election and the role they played in destabilizing it.

If the Democrats want an authentic Russian connection, WikiLeaks is it. As for this latest dump, things are actually looking serious. Snowden is pouring through the documents and he's saying it looks legit based on various terms and names (program and office names) he's seen.

Snowden is also saying the government has paid for the ability to access (hack) Android and iOS. Guess it's time to buy a Windows Phone, eh?

The gifs in Snowden's twitter feed are hilarious.

Since everyone is talking about slavery might as well share this.

Old slave states also had highest rate of Trump supporters

Shocking just shocking.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence