***This is what these agreements seek to achieve.***
What they seek and what they may actually achieve are 2 totally opposite things
Free trade is the status quo. A nation doesn’t need a policy with another nation about trade. It’s people need only interact with one another. That is a lack of a policy. Tariffs, embargoes, quotas, etc. are all policy goals. That’s what I meant by free trade is the lack of a policy.
***Since you basically agreed with my other points***
I did?
***I merely point out that there is not much difference between his positions and those of Barak Obama.***
Obama wants the free market to set interest rates and determine what will be used as money?
Obama wants to loosen restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?
Obama wants the government to stay out of health care?
Obama is going to massively cut government spending?
Obama wants to phase out Social Security and Medicare?
Obama wants the states to decide all issues not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution?
Obama wants to end abortion?
Obama wants out of the UN?
Obama wants to cut federal regulations and taxes on businesses?
> Free trade is the status quo.
Actually no, all countries, including United States, impose tariffs and various other restrictions on trade (e.g., land and company ownerships). The free trade agreements are what eliminate these restrictions. (Not sure about that “all” part. Possibly there might be some countries that do not have tariffs. Unfortunately, I can’t think of one off-hand.)
>> ***Since you basically agreed with my other points***
> I did?
Yes you did. For example (from your post):
“Even if he is a stone cold racist, what policies exactly is he thinking of enacting that harms minorities? Last time I checked he wanted government to do very little.”
So basically, you agree that he might be a racist. You just don’t think it’s a big deal.