In Europe and Canada, the conservatives support free college and UHC from what I have heard. So what separates them from the liberals? Why don’t they become liberals if they agree with the left on everything?
In Europe and Canada, what are the differences between liberals and conservatives?
Posts
Total:
17
-->
@TheUnderdog
In Europe and Canada, the conservatives support free college and UHC from what I have heard. So what separates them from the liberals? Why don’t they become liberals if they agree with the left on everything?
the thing you are missing is that the US is WAY to the right of virtually every other 1st world country. Things that are right wing in the US are off the scale crazy in other countries. Things that are "left" in the US are middle of the road normal in most modern countries.
Take universal health care. The idea that poor people should be allowed to die because they can't afford basic health care wouldn't fly for a single second in canada or most of Europe. Anyone so far right wing as to advocate for that would probably be tossed out on their ass. Obama's health care plan was super right wing by European or Canadian standards. But to the right in america it was some sort of communist plot.
So it isn't that liberals and conservatives agree on everything in other countries, it is that the political spectrum in America is super fucked up. So by comparison, it seems like they do.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would suggest that the bulk of the population (and I speak as a British person) are moderate and only align themselves politically at election times. The rest of the time, most people have better things to do....Fortunately in the U.K. extremism isn't allowed to get much of a look in...So the terms liberal and conservative tend not to mean a great deal when it comes to national policy decisions.
-->
@HistoryBuff
In Europe, if even conservatives back UHC, are pro choice, and support gun control, how are they any different from liberals? If Europe was under one party rule(the liberal party), then Europe would be more honest.
Here in America, the conservatives actually believe in fiscally conservative policies and it allowed America to have double the per capita income of the EU and 50 percent more than Canada. In Europe, your either liberal or conservative in name only (with an exception to immigration).
So, European conservatives are diet liberals.
-->
@TheUnderdog
In Europe, if even conservatives back UHC, are pro choice, and support gun control, how are they any different from liberals?
You sound like someone who has never spoken to anyone who wasn't american. You can't fathom how people from other places function. It isn't conservatives in the rest of the world that are strange. America's right is insanely right wing by the standards of most developed countries.
So your question is a bit like Nazi's asking how can anyone be right wing if they don't want to exterminate the jews. They just can't fathom how you could want anything else.
Here in America, the conservatives actually believe in fiscally conservative policies
sure they do.... and that is why a republican president just ran historic deficits for his entire term and his republican party didn't complain about it at all.
it allowed America to have double the per capita income of the EU and 50 percent more than Canada.
A couple of things.
1) where did you get your numbers? I'm not sure they are accurate.
2) this isn't a good way to determine the health of an economy. Because the vast majority of that wealth you are describing ends up in the hands of a very tiny fraction of people.
3) Also, by that measure there are at least a dozen countries better than the US, like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway.
In Europe, your either liberal or conservative in name only (with an exception to immigration).
Ahh, that's the spirit. If someone doesn't believe the same thing as you, they must be fake or less than you. Because only far right wing loonies could possibly be right....
So, European conservatives are diet liberals.
nope. American conservatives are just off the scale right wing.
-->
@HistoryBuff
1) where did you get your numbers? I'm not sure they are accurate.
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/eu-position-in-world-trade/index_en.htm States the EU’s per capita income is 25000 euros a year, or roughly $30000. This is comparable to Puerto Rico, which if it were a state would mean that the EU average is comparable to America’s worst state like area. Half of the EU is below this.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US States that the GDP per capita in the US is roughly $65,000 a year.
this isn't a good way to determine the health of an economy. Because the vast majority of that wealth you are describing ends up in the hands of a very tiny fraction of people.
This applies to both Europe and the US. Wealth distribution is always skewed to the right in countries.
Also, by that measure there are at least a dozen countries better than the US, like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway.
I think there are 3 countries with a per capita income higher than America in Europe(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#Table_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita). Luxembourg is incredibly urban, and urban areas tend to be better off than rural areas in all countries. Ireland has less taxes than the rest of Europe generally. Switzerland has a tourism advantage I think. Every other country in Europe is falling behind the US. Oddballs like these 3 countries exist, but overall America has managed to replicate the rare success of the rich places in Europe across its whole country, which would be the equivalent of Europe replicating Its wealthy success stories across the entire EU.
So Europe, despite it being more urban than America, earns less than half of the American salary, when adjusted for population.
Rather than demonize America as this radical conservative place, Europe can learn from American economics.
If someone doesn't believe the same thing as you, they must be fake or less than you. Because only far right wing loonies could possibly be right....
If someone agrees with the liberals on a majority of social and economic issues, then they are a liberal. How can one be conservative and believe in the following:
-Medicare for all
-Free college
-Gun control
-Pro choice on abortion
Nothing wrong with claiming your a liberal, but be honest. If you claim to be a liberal but believe the following:
-Are pro life
-Are pro war
-Want to repeal the income tax
-Don’t want UHC
-Want to repeal Obamacare
-Are pro AK47 and oppose background checks
-Don’t believe in white privilege
-And want to close American borders
If you believe all that, your not a liberal, even if you claim to be. Nothing wrong with being a conservative, but come as advertised.
If you claim that you can be a liberal while believing in everything conservative, then what does it mean to be a liberal and what does it mean to be a conservative if you can believe whatever and even if you agree with one party most of the time, how can you claim to represent the other party?
-->
@TheUnderdog
States the EU’s per capita income is 25000 euros a year, or roughly $30000.
that says GDP per capita. There is nothing on there that says anything about income per capita. Those are 2 very different things.
States that the GDP per capita in the US is roughly $65,000 a year.
in your previous post you were talking about income, now you have switched to GDP per capita. Do you understand those aren't the same thing?
this isn't a good way to determine the health of an economy. Because the vast majority of that wealth you are describing ends up in the hands of a very tiny fraction of people.This applies to both Europe and the US. Wealth distribution is always skewed to the right in countries.
yes, but in Europe, like most modern countries, there are lots of social programs in place to help smooth the rough edges a bit. For example, most of Europe doesn't have hundreds of thousands of people going bankrupt because of medical costs. The US very much does.
I think there are 3 countries with a per capita income higher than America in
now you are back to talking about income again. Which are we talking about, GDP or income?
If someone agrees with the liberals on a majority of social and economic issues, then they are a liberal.
that is exactly your problem. You are basing what a "liberal" is solely on what American "liberals" and "conservatives" think. In most of the modern world an American "conservative" is an off the scale lunatic. No conservative would dare advocate for the insanity that the american right does because they would be run out of office. It isn't that conservatives in europe are liberal. it is that conservatives in the US are nuts.
Nothing wrong with claiming your a liberal, but be honest. If you claim to be a liberal but believe the following:
your list is kind of messed up and shows a very flawed understanding of what "conservative" means. You are mixing and matching very different things and assuming they are all "conservative".
-Are pro life
this is a very abstract description. There are lots people who would love universal health care but also have concerns about abortion.
-Are pro war
Do you think all conservatives love war? that's messed up.
-Want to repeal the income tax
who the hell would want that? That is exactly the kind of off the scale crazy I was talking about.
-Are pro AK47 and oppose background checks
this is some more off the scale crazy. The large majority of americans support background checks. Including alot of "conservatives".
-Don’t believe in white privilege
you are confusing "conservative" with "racist". Although I agree there is alot of overlap.
-And want to close American borders
lol, this is absolutely not a conservative value. Republicans have been pushing for globalist trade policies to exploit migrant labor for decades. "conservative" leadership absolutely does not want this.
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is nothing on there that says anything about income per capita. Those are 2 very different things.
What’s the difference between GDP per capita and income per capita?
For example, most of Europe doesn't have hundreds of thousands of people going bankrupt because of medical costs. The US very much does.
The solution is to encourage poor people to pay for their own healthcare. If your fine with your tax dollars going to help the poor, remove the government middleman and adopt a homeless person. At least it’s cheaper that way. If your unwilling to do that, don’t force the taxpayer to pay for the homeless persons free stuff since your not willing to.
There are lots people who would love universal health care but also have concerns about abortion.
These people aren’t conservative, but probably statist. They want the government involved with giving poor people and fetuses free stuff.
Do you think all conservatives love war? that's messed up.
A majority of conservatives support war otherwise they wouldn’t feel the need to give the military more money.
this is some more off the scale crazy. The large majority of americans support background checks.
I meant if someone was super pro gun, they probably wouldn’t be liberal.
you are confusing "conservative" with "racist". Although I agree there is alot of overlap.
If conservatives were racist, they would support gun control which harms blacks people more.
-And want to close American borderslol, this is absolutely not a conservative value.
Then why does Trump want the wall? He’s right wing and he supports stricter immigration requirements.
-->
@TheUnderdog
What’s the difference between GDP per capita and income per capita?
GDP and income are not the same thing. One is the value of all products created. The other is the amount of money people made. Those are not the same thing.
The solution is to encourage poor people to pay for their own healthcare.
wow that is a super weak argument. So the solution for people going bankrupt because they can't afford the insanely over priced healhcare, is to force people to pay for their own healthcare.... Do you not see the stupidity of that answer? The reason they went bankrupt is because they paid for their own healthcare. And it bankrupted them.
If your fine with your tax dollars going to help the poor, remove the government middleman and adopt a homeless person. At least it’s cheaper that way. If your unwilling to do that, don’t force the taxpayer to pay for the homeless persons free stuff since your not willing to.
this answer doesn't really make sense. It, in no way, solves the problem. You are arguing exactly what the rich want. They want to be able to make huge sums of money and offload the associated costs to someone else. Which is exactly what you are proposing.
These people aren’t conservative, but probably statist. They want the government involved with giving poor people and fetuses free stuff.
lol, why do you believe that you get to define what a conservative is?
Do you think all conservatives love war? that's messed up.A majority of conservatives support war otherwise they wouldn’t feel the need to give the military more money.
This seems wildly inaccurate. I'm pretty sure most conservatives done "love war".
I meant if someone was super pro gun, they probably wouldn’t be liberal.
why? there is absolutely no conflict between wanting guns and liking universal healthcare. Those 2 things aren't related at all.
If conservatives were racist, they would support gun control which harms blacks people more.
no, they like having lots of guns because they believe they will need to use them on black people.
Then why does Trump want the wall? He’s right wing and he supports stricter immigration requirements.
the wall is a complete joke. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in america come through a port of entry. IE a border crossing, an airport etc. A wall has absolutely no effect on them. He is building a wall (which isn't an effective solution anyway) to stop a tiny fraction of illegal immigrants. But with tunnels, ladders etc, it won't stop many people. It's all a show. Trump doesn't give a shit about illegal immigrants. He has employed lots of them at his businesses. He pretends to care to appeal to stupid/racist/xenophobic people.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Europe and Canada are far to the authoritarian scale with the government managing everything.
-->
@HistoryBuff
So the solution for people going bankrupt because they can't afford the insanely over priced healhcare, is to force people to pay for their own healthcare..
The solution to the poor’s healthcare problem is to hook low income people up with better paying jobs so they can pay for their own healthcare.
You are arguing exactly what the rich want.
Or I don’t want mandatory charity. If your so concerned about poor people, adopt a homeless person. If your unwilling to do that, don’t expect taxpayers to pay for a homeless person’s house either.
lol, why do you believe that you get to define what a conservative is?
A conservative wants fiscal libertarianism and social authoritarianism. It’s a fact.
no, they like having lots of guns because they believe they will need to use them on black people.
Funny. Conservatives have no desire to shoot black people.
Trump doesn't give a shit about illegal immigrants.
His redereck does because he is against it. You judge a politician by their redereck and what they get done. Trump tried to get a wall, but he failed.
He pretends to care to appeal to stupid/racist/xenophobic people.
I wouldn’t call Trump supporters racist. Drums are racist because they want reparations.
-->
@TheUnderdog
So the solution for people going bankrupt because they can't afford the insanely over priced healhcare, is to force people to pay for their own healthcare..The solution to the poor’s healthcare problem is to hook low income people up with better paying jobs so they can pay for their own healthcare.
so in this hypothetical world, low paying jobs do not exist? companies like walmart, amazon, McDonalds, etc are paying all their workers enough to be able to afford healthcare? Or are you suggesting that these businesses simply shouldn't exist because we should make sure all workers get high paying jobs and no one should work for these companies?
You are arguing exactly what the rich want.Or I don’t want mandatory charity. If your so concerned about poor people, adopt a homeless person. If your unwilling to do that, don’t expect taxpayers to pay for a homeless person’s house either.
this makes no sense. It's like saying if you are concerned about crime, go out and stop all crime yourself. If you are unwilling to do that, don't expect taxpayers to pay for police.
lol, why do you believe that you get to define what a conservative is?A conservative wants fiscal libertarianism and social authoritarianism. It’s a fact.
wow... no. just no. That is a hard right wing view. If you think only people who believe that are conservative, then there are very few conservatives in america.
Trump doesn't give a shit about illegal immigrants.His redereck does because he is against it. You judge a politician by their redereck and what they get done. Trump tried to get a wall, but he failed.
i'm guessing you meant rhetoric. but that is a guess.
Having rhetoric that says one thing, but doing the exact opposite your whole life is called lying. Trump fear mongered about illegal immigrants, but his companies have relied on it for a long time.
-->
@HistoryBuff
so in this hypothetical world, low paying jobs do not exist? companies like walmart, amazon, McDonalds, etc are paying all their workers enough to be able to afford healthcare?
In this world, given that the University of Georgetown found 13 million high school degree jobs that pay $55K or more per year(or nearly double Bernie Sander’s $15 an hour promise) and that there are only 1.6 million jobs that work minimum wage(the majority are held by minors and people in college), there is no need for a minimum wage because adults can find better paying jobs and kids don’t need the money that much.
Or are you suggesting that these businesses simply shouldn't exist because we should make sure all workers get high paying jobs and no one should work for these companies?
I’m saying let the people (out of school permanently) that work for these companies find better paying jobs and let young people work jobs where they don’t need huge sums of money to survive since their parents pay for all their kid’s living expenses.
this makes no sense. It's like saying if you are concerned about crime, go out and stop all crime yourself. If you are unwilling to do that, don't expect taxpayers to pay for police.
This is different. Crime is hard to stop. It requires so much training to stop crime. Homelessness is easy to stop; just adopt homeless people and get enough people to do the same thing.
wow... no. just no. That is a hard right wing view. If you think only people who believe that are conservative, then there are very few conservatives in america.
I doubt it. There are many social authoritarians. These are pro lifers, anti drug legalization people, people who want to give the military more money. If these people also believe in fiscal libertarianism, then they are conservative.
-->
@TheUnderdog
there is no need for a minimum wage because adults can find better paying jobs and kids don’t need the money that much.
the simpler answer is just to put minimum wage based on age/school status. IE the minimum wage for a minor or someone in college is X ammount and the minimum wage for an adult is like $15 per hour. If they did that then it completely negates your argument.
I’m saying let the people (out of school permanently) that work for these companies find better paying jobs and let young people work jobs where they don’t need huge sums of money to survive since their parents pay for all their kid’s living expenses.
and let millions of people starve because they can't find better employment in a system designed to under pay them?
This is different. Crime is hard to stop. It requires so much training to stop crime. Homelessness is easy to stop; just adopt homeless people and get enough people to do the same thing.
Your point is exactly what the right wants. They want responsibility for taking care of american citizens to not be something the government does, but to be something done by private charities. That way they can gouge and take advantage of people, amass huge amounts of wealth and do very little to pay back into the system that has made them so wealthy. It's win/win for them. It's everyone else that has to pay for it.
doubt it. There are many social authoritarians. These are pro lifers, anti drug legalization people, people who want to give the military more money.
ok. and what about people who are pro-life, but also believe in taking care of the poor, you know like Jesus said Christians should? By your definition they are some kind of leftist, not a conservative.
You are painting a very specific and very extreme definition of what a conservative is that excludes most people who would think of themselves as "conservative".
-->
@HistoryBuff
the simpler answer is just to put minimum wage based on age/school status. IE the minimum wage for a minor or someone in college is X ammount and the minimum wage for an adult is like $15 per hour. If they did that then it completely negates your argument.
So you want 2 different minimum wages. The problem I see with this is for adults out of college, it kills their ambition. It makes them satisfied, and therefore unwilling to pursue higher paying jobs. While the government could force businesses to pay $15 an hour to its adult employees, the absence of a minimum wage would make adult employees that are out of school try to find jobs that will pay around $30 an hour that consent to paying such high wages without government intervention because the products and services produced by these businesses make these businesses even more money than what a minimum wage job produces from buisiness.
Another reason why I don’t like that idea is it would cause businesses to fire adults so they can hire more high schoolers and save money from their cheap labor. What would you make the minimum wage for high school workers? I don’t think it should be anything. They don’t need the money.
Your point is exactly what the right wants.
Well, I’m fiscally right wing.
They want responsibility for taking care of american citizens to not be something the government does, but to be something done by private charities.
Basically. The charities consent to help people. The taxpayer does not. It’s better that consenting people help out than non consenting people.
That way they can gouge and take advantage of people, amass huge amounts of wealth and do very little to pay back into the system that has made them so wealthy.
The rich get rich by making other people’s lives better in a mutually consensual way. The rich get rich, but they pay back by providing products and services to people at a competitive price. For example, you may give Wal mart $100, but they give you a blender in exchange for this $100. From the perspective of you, the blender is worth more than $100. From the perspective of Wal Mary, the blender is worth less than $100. You agree to trade the blender for $100, and both parties win from their perspective. This is a mutually beneficial exchange. You make billions of mutually beneficial exchanges, and that is how your company becomes rich. If you don’t want billionaires getting rich, stop buying their stuff.
Capitalism is the only known economic system where you can only get rich by helping your fellow man. Every other economic system , people have gotten rich by taking money from people without their consent.
ok. and what about people who are pro-life, but also believe in taking care of the poor, you know like Jesus said Christians should?
Depends. If your pro life on religious grounds and you believe in donating to the poor with your money, your charitable. If you are pro life on religious grounds and believe in a welfare state because of the Bible, your a statist, an authoritarian, and a theocrat. Nothing wrong with this, but your not a conservative or Republican.
-->
@TheUnderdog
So you want 2 different minimum wages
sure. other countries have things like that
The problem I see with this is for adults out of college, it kills their ambition. It makes them satisfied, and therefore unwilling to pursue higher paying jobs.
how so? $15 per hour isn't a great wage anyway. The kind of people that would be satisfied with that aren't going to be the sort of people to seek higher paying jobs anyway. you can't force people to be ambitious.
the absence of a minimum wage would make adult employees that are out of school try to find jobs that will pay around $30 an hour that consent to paying such high wages without government intervention because the products and services produced by these businesses make these businesses even more money than what a minimum wage job produces from buisiness.
I'm not certain I understand your point. If someone is going to be happy with $15 per hour, then they aren't likely to pursue a $30 per hour job either way. I'm not sure how setting a minimum would change how people would react to a $15 per hour job. Some will want more, and some will not. A minimum wage doesn't change the person's ambition.
Another reason why I don’t like that idea is it would cause businesses to fire adults so they can hire more high schoolers and save money from their cheap labor.
I don't agree. Teens don't tend to have a great work ethic. They have alot of other stuff going on in their lives. If the job is trivial enough that a high schooler could do it well, then why would they need an adult doing it? On the other hand, if it requires enough hard work or experience that they can't find enough high schoolers willing or able to fill the need, then they should be paying enough for an adult to live off of it.
What would you make the minimum wage for high school workers? I don’t think it should be anything. They don’t need the money.
i certainly don't have a firm number in mind. But I would say something like 66%-75% of the adult minimum wage would be reasonable.
Basically. The charities consent to help people. The taxpayer does not. It’s better that consenting people help out than non consenting people.
Of course the tax payer consents to that. That is what the government is for. It does things for it's citizens. It builds roads, ensures safety, protects people etc. The government exists to help people. If someone does not consent to this, then they should not live somewhere with a government.
It’s better that consenting people help out than non consenting people.
the problem with this idea is that it is wildly inconsistent. You will get some areas where people can get help and others where they cannot. Some people will suffer horribly. This kind of inconsistency creates alot of problems.
The rich get rich by making other people’s lives better in a mutually consensual way.
in a limited sense you are correct. But it is an insanely oversimplified answer. The extremely rich don't get that way because they behaved in a mutually beneficial way. By and large, most of them got that way by being cut throat and screwing people over whenever they could get away with it.
You agree to trade the blender for $100, and both parties win from their perspective. This is a mutually beneficial exchange.
perhaps. But the workers at Walmart who need to get food at a food bank just to survive lose. They are forced to rely on charities and government services to survive. Thus charities and the tax payers are forced to subsidize these highly profitable companies.
Capitalism is the only known economic system where you can only get rich by helping your fellow man. Every other economic system , people have gotten rich by taking money from people without their consent.
No one is advocating for anything other than Capitolism. Capitolism is great. But for all it's usefulness, it also has considerable draw backs. It is a system that encourages unrestrained avarice at the expense of everything else. Capitolism doesn't care about what is best for America, or it's people. It doesn't care what is best for the middle class or the planet itself. Unrestrained Capitolism will chew up resources for a quick profit, even if it kills people. Even if it destroys the planet. We need capitolism, but we also need limits on capitolism to protect us from it's down sides. That is why we have things like labor laws so companies can't force you to work 80 hours per week in unsafe conditions, like they used to.
Depends. If your pro life on religious grounds and you believe in donating to the poor with your money, your charitable. If you are pro life on religious grounds and believe in a welfare state because of the Bible, your a statist, an authoritarian, and a theocrat. Nothing wrong with this, but your not a conservative or Republican.
again, you are severely restricting what a conservative is to a very, hyper focused world view. And that world view covers a very small percentage of americans. For example, this poll found that 39% of republicans were in favor of free college. At least 20% of republicans like Obamacare. These things don't fit into your view of what a republican is. 63% of Americans say the US government has a responsibility to provide healthcare for all.
If you can only be a republican if you believe all the things you are claiming, then the republicans are screwed because the majority of americans don't want those things.
12 days later
-->
@HistoryBuff
sure. other countries have things like that
Like who?
how so? $15 per hour isn't a great wage anyway.
It's the median wage in the United States.
The kind of people that would be satisfied with that aren't going to be the sort of people to seek higher paying jobs anyway. you can't force people to be ambitious.
I don't want to reward people for not being ambitious by guaranteeing them a fixed amount of money.
A minimum wage doesn't change the person's ambition.
Repealing the minimum wage would kickstart people to be ambitious with their salaries, which benefits them in the long term.
Teens don't tend to have a great work ethic
I think some teens do, and these are going to be the teens working for companies.
If the job is trivial enough that a high schooler could do it well, then why would they need an adult doing it?
I don't think a minimum wage employer cares if a teen or an adult works the job, and as someone who works a minimum wage job, the majority of the workers are teenagers.
Of course the tax payer consents to that.
They don't consent to having some of their money taken from them. If they don't consent to a theft taking $100, what makes you think they are willing to pay $20000 to a government when they aren't going to get $20,000 in benefits?
It does things for it's citizens. It builds roads, ensures safety, protects people etc.
The roads are already built, people can ensure their own safety and people can protect themselves by buying a gun and bullets. It's cheaper and more effective than the police.
If someone does not consent to this, then they should not live somewhere with a government.
Impossible as every piece of land on this planet is ruled by a country. America was the nation of small government for the world to emulate. Now, we fight in endless war and we kill poor people's ambition by government programs.
You will get some areas where people can get help and others where they cannot.
The internet exists though. If you want to help homeless people who can't get help other ways, you can donate to charities.
By and large, most of (the rich) got that way by being cut throat and screwing people over whenever they could get away with it.
This isn't true. Who did Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs screw to get rich?
But the workers at Walmart who need to get food at a food bank just to survive lose.
The adults can find better paying jobs, of which the university of Georgetown found 13 million of.
Thus charities and the tax payers are forced to subsidize these highly profitable companies.
I don't like corporate welfare or individual welfare.
That is why we have things like labor laws so companies can't force you to work 80 hours per week in unsafe conditions, like they used to.
This isn't controversial.
For example, this poll found that 39% of republicans were in favor of free college. At least 20% of republicans like Obamacare. These things don't fit into your view of what a republican is. 63% of Americans say the US government has a responsibility to provide healthcare for all.
What doesn't make sense is the vast majority of polls show the left wing position being the majority position. 61% of Americans are pro choice(Public Opinion on Abortion | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org)). Poll: Most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite' - POLITICOBack ButtonSearch IconFilter Icon states that 73% of the public support banning "assault weapons" and want stricter background checks. The American People Agree: Cut the Pentagon’s Budget (dataforprogress.org) states that most people want to cut the military's budget. Add your poll in there, and I can confirm that roughly 65% of the country believes a majority of left wing ideas. How come liberals and left of center people don't make up 65% of the country? I think if the polls were right, then democrats would win almost every state and would win every presidency. But the polls I think are wrong.
If you can only be a republican if you believe all the things you are claiming, then the republicans are screwed because the majority of americans don't want those things.
You have to be a republican on a majority of issues to be a republican. If you don't agree with the republicans on a majority of the issues, get out of the party and join the democrats. You will be more honest then.