Du hast von der Distanz her Recht, aber die Existenz or Erwähnung von mehr als einem Saarland macht mir Angst.

That’s like, 1.3 times too many Saarlands.

It’s not an internal report, it’s an unevaluated info, received by a source. Not some conclusion the CIA came to.

A trade deficit is never exploitation. Lets pretend it is!

All of the stats Trump put up weren’t tariffs, they were a percentage of much less they would have to import in Goods from a certain country to make for the trade deficit with said country in Goods.

Not a single stat on that sheet looked at the trade in services. America always had a service trade surplus.

If we combine the two, a lot of countries that seem to “”““exploit””" the US are suddenly exploited by the US.

But lets go even further: The countries receiving the highest tariffs are Vietnam and Lesotho, becuase the US has the highest deficit in Goods with these countries. Because both countries are too fucking poor to buy american products. A worker in Lesotho, providing diamonds for the US market, would have to invest about 20 years of wagest to buy the cheapest american import car. How the fuck should these countries reduce their deficit?

Okay, but still, we assume that a deficit is somehow exploitation. Trump has said that the tariffs are going to do two things, namely bringing back American Industry and forcing trade partner to drop “barriers and tariffs” (i.e. safety regulations).

For a tariff to do the former, it has to stay until the relevant factories have been built in America and have also paid themselves off. For a tariff to the latter, the possibility of it being removed once the partner comploes has to be on the table. A tariff can’t do both.

But hey, don’t believe me. Read the paper the White House cited in their Announcement of the Tariffs.

Nah, ai slop should stay in the facebook boomer corner and die.

Dont know, but i had to go that route.

And again, on Windows, i wouldnt have to do that. I just download the program and there it is.

Let me just propose a different scenario: i watch football via Wow.tv. Before i installed Linux, i

1. Opened up a browser
2. Went to the website
3. Entered a password
4. Watched the stream.

On linux i tried that, got hit with the old “DRM content on Linux” razzledazzle, tried to figure out if i could install a browser that runs via wine to access the site, only to get hit with four forum entries all saying: “Why tf do you want to run a browser via wine? Dont do that.”

I had to whip out my old windows laptop to watch my footie.

I love linux. I love being able to tinker and do all the cool stuff on it, being independent of large corps and such. But for a lot of people this isnt worth the hassle. And not recognizing this is one of the reasons why Linux will not reach mass adoption.

Get angry, frustrated and ask someone who knows. And because more people are using Windows, chances are, they will find the answer way quicker. Also, most programs already run on windows.

Like when i wanted to set up my Proton Drive on Windows, i just downloaded it and started it.

On Ubuntu, i had to write a systemd.service to get the program to autostart on starting my machine. Which was fun, but it isnt for a lot of people.

The year of linux will never come because a lot of people wanna boot up their pc and have it work. Just fire up a program and have work, without looking up workarounds and clis and other stuff.

I made the jump just this month but i can totally understand if someone doesnt wanna do this.

Painting the SRs or the dismantled soviets as bourgeois is a bit rich.

I know that the marxist framework does not explicitly say “The Vanguard is always right”, but for example in the GDR, the Vanguard itself said so. “Die Partei hat immer Recht.” The Party is always right.

And im going to be honest: If shit like the great terror is how marxist states are supposed to be, maybe they are shit states.

“The Vanguard” as you describe it was an ideological justification to describe any and all criticism of the ruling class (and yes, to me, the upper echelons of the USSR were a ruling class) as counterrevolutionary. “The most advanced of the working class” shredded the countries military leader shit on the eve of the second world war not because of existing coups, but out of paranoia. “The vanguard” in the end served only to preserve their own interests.

“The people elected SRs or did not vote majority Bolshevik? What do they know, we are the vanguard, we know whats best, lets ignore the elections and abolish the soviets.”

Thats why i dislike the concept of the Vanguard. Because never turned out the way it was promised and it never will.

You have to have leaders and then do everything in your power to not let them succumb to vanguardism.

I also lean more in to an anarchist style of leadership, but decing everything by quorum can paralyze movements or leave them without a clear message.