sorry for dumb question but here it goes: I remember during the first administration, Trump launched some tariffs against us and if I recall correctly, it resulted in the signing of the USMCA which replaced NAFTA.

So, where I get lost is, are these agreements non-binding? Like a country can just choose not to follow them and face no consequences before they expire? Cause I'd assume that what the U.S. is doing breaks the conditions of the USMCA?

and if it's non-binding, then that means that even if another agreement is signed yet again, if Trump wants to throw a new tantrum halfway through his presidency and do tariff wars again, there's nothing stopping him and we'd have to come up with and sign a brand new agreement yet again?

basically, there seem to be 2 competing narratives of "people of color/poor people of all color tend to have it worse so let's create social programs specifically targeting them to left them up"

and I am see pros and cons to both sides and am wondering what people well-researched and versed on either have to say to each other.

1. I really prefer to see a long-form discussion but I am not opposed to a debate as long as its a debate with no audience. I've really grown to hate watching debate participants try to argue for claps or score cheap points with the audience.
2. Very minimal shouting or yelling over each other and each side lets the other finish.
3. I prefer if its not "dark web" folks like Sam Harris or Coleman Hughes who are involved in discussion but am not totally opposed.

An example of a debate I kinda liked (would have liked it more if Fridman hadn't invited a streamer and treated it like he had the same level of expertise as historians or analyst): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X_KdkoGxSs