In terms of international trade, the whole laisse faire position us usually posed by right-wing conservative nationalists, who feel that our country can provide for all of it's own needs and the desires of the citizenry; and therefore should crack down on doing business internationally and crack down on imports/exports.
In the current state of technology (i.e. the internet and rapid international freight), the laisse faire attitude is a suicidal naivete, and nationalistic hubris.
Your view of "protectionism" is aligned nicely with the US right-wing conservative Republicans.
Good. So do we all. There are large industrial organizations who may derive financial gains through the upsale of weaponry; but beyond the few in their administrative offices, almost nobody is actually for war.
That said, Conservatives of today (in the US) by their nature want to hold onto international influence that was once was. They also tend to see the world more in terms of USA
uber alles. And as such, are much more likely to launch ill conceived wars (remember, "they will welcome us as heroes in
So you always support refugees, and you are for support of foreign governments.
To what extent?
The UN is a support and defense system between allied/friendly nations. If one goes to war, they all help the warring nation. Are you OK with that?
With global warming, there will be larger areas struck by crop failures, flooding, etc.... and that will result in famines. People will become roaming masses (refugees) in numbers never before imagined. Numbers that will strain the food and economies of whatever nations take them in without constraint. All on top of the obvious fear and hatred of the refugees that sort of immigration ALWAYS brings out of the dark corners of human psyches.
BTW - The Conservatives are very much more racist (and violently so) than the Progressive left.
Against destabilization of foreign governments. Even when they are slaughtering tens of thousands of others? Of their own people?
I'll grant you this one. Yours is the more left-leaning viewpoint.
For abortion, childcare, as well as for government funding of basic sciences and specific sciences. In the US, these are the positions of the Progressives, the left, the Democrats.
They are all opposed by the right, the Conservative Republicans.
Good. You're against gun ownership. Your view on this goes (rather harshly) to the left (Democrat) in US politics. Honestly though, most US lefties want to allow gun ownership, but limit it to much tighter regulation on whether mentally ill and violent criminals should be allowed firearms. And keep all private firearms down to simple hunting weapons, and low-capacity pistols.
It's the righties (Republicans) who want everyone to have as many large, military-grade, tank-busters as they can pack in everyone's basements.
You are for gay marriage; adoptions; divorce settlements; trans rights. Then you are a US Democrat. Congratulations!
Right-wingers want all of these rights eliminated; and all of these people to 'disappear' too.
Yep. Both US parties are against illegal immigration, and for legal immigration (wellllllll. The conservatives would rather kick several million US citizens out, if their skin-color, religion, and/or sexual preferences are not up to Conservative "norms"). But out loud, they claim to support legal immigration like the left-wing progressive Democrats do.
Unfortunately, the righties want a wall (like the USSR had in Berlin), complete with machine-guns, land-mines, attack dogs, and in some areas, even crocodile-filled moats. While the lefties would like more guards, and high-tech surveillance of the border, which would be far more effective and far less murderous.
So which do you choose
@Estro Felino ? Surveillance and deportation? Or motion-sensing automated machine guns? (PS - you cannot say you are leftist if you choose the latter).
And you support infrastructure (roads, mail, rail lines, harbors, airports, medical care, power grid; power sources for the grid); worker education for changing markets; racial equality; etc...etc....etc....
All of these things are squarely in the Left wing US Democrats' wheel-house. NOT the right's.
Every time that the POTUS and a significant majority of both houses of Congress are controlled by the left, these things all improve. Any time Republicans hold any of the three positions, or even if there is a slim majority of Dems, the Republicans (who all vote in lock-step like good little Gestapo) are usually able to halt action on the many bills that Dems present to improve our nation.
Any time the Right controls the POTUS and most of Congress, we get tax-cuts solely for the uber-rich and major multinational companies. Deregulation of laws, undeniably resulting in destruction of the environment, with worsened pollution and global warming. Back-pedaling on all scientific endeavors. Curtailed rights, particularly for women, workers, the poor, immigrants (legal or not), and increased levels of zealot divisive Christian white nationalism.
These truths are self-evident if you have your eyes, ears, and brain functioning in the USA over the last 50 years.
Overall
@Estro Felino - you seem to have a VERY twisted idea of how politics in the USA actually work. From your posts here, and in many other threads, this confusion on your part seems to derive from your ABSOLUTELY HORRIFICALLY RIGHT-WING-BIASED so called "news sources",
who often have you cheering Fascist, violent, autocratic dictators;
slamming people who are trying to help the working class citizens and the poor,
supporting male-chauvinist pigs (because "real men" should be contemptuous of women, and just use them for sex, then toss them aside).
You yell to the mountain tops that you are Leftist; yet while many of the issues you support (above) are truly consistent with the Democrats/Left in the USA
; .... you have somehow been
conned into thinking all these good positions are held by the Righties and not the Lefties.
And that undeniably SCREAMS that you are getting your views of the USA from extremist right-wing propaganda.
As a lawyer (as you've claimed you are) I would have expected a little more investigation into the theoretical "evidence" that you have been given.
