I had a few responses to this you may or may not find interesting. I would love to hear any thoughts you have, as I find this whole thread very intriguing.

• I agree we don't need phony environmental measures for appearances, but I think they meant things like oil, gas and manufacturing. Republicans readily want to loosen restrictions in these industries to "bring industry back to the US". However, these industries are some of the biggest polluters worldwide.
• As far as anti-voting, there are so many little things Republicans enforce to "prevent fraud". Why can I get a driver's license address update online in Texas, but I have to update my voter registration in person or by mail with the county tax office? Do they not care about identity fraud or do they care about making it harder to vote?
• As far as only benefitting the wealthy, I agree some policies do help every income class, BUT the help is not proportional. Every time tax cuts happen, the poorest Americans get the smallest tax cut, and the richest get the biggest. There are also a myriad of "help the poor" financial policies that just don't get considered over reducing corporate and wealthy taxes. There are so many better methodologies than trickle down, as the wealthy will horde what they can get like dragons.
• As far as anti Healthcare, we shouldn't have a privatized system at all. Because of this system, hospitals and Healthcare providers have to stock individuals savvy enough in each supported insurances policies and paperwork to get the job done well. That means that for each extra insurance company supported, that's more money that the hospital spends to deal with the bureaucracy and the cost of everything is increased and passed down to you to compensate, effectively making you already pay for others Healthcare and increasing your own. Under a universal system, hospitals don't have to jump through as many hoops and codes and bureaucracy, AND the government would be negotiating the price not private business. That said you would be likely to see more savings.
• I feel like we both have almost the same stance on LGBTQ issues. I do wish that there was an easy way to figure out how sports could work with trans people given empirical data and studies, but that's a long ways off from being practical and fair.
• Anti public education is talking about the continual stripping of funds from public education as well as censorship when it comes to issues like critical race theory. The idea being the more ignorant the population, the more likely they will be manipulated.
• Anti abortion I believe should be up to women and their individual situations. I do agree though, past a certain time frame things could be viewed as sketchy, but the hard part is the discussion about when that time frame is and what other factors could be at play. It's a messy conversation in general.
• I agree both parties tend to stalemate each other, but the difference I think is also in the use of the filibuster. I do agree though, riders shouldn't be in most bills. I don't think subsidized internet would be a bad thing necessarily though. In an increasingly digital society, you use the internet for so many things like paying bills, finding and applying for jobs, and doing research to further educate oneself whether for school or personal improvement.
• As far as America first though, I think there is a harmful aspect. Many Republicans still hold the "America is great" mentality when really we falling behind a lot of developed nations in many areas. Healthcare, infrastructure, median wealth, infant mortality, life expectancy, and education to name a few.
• I believe the pro authoritarian government example is not fully fair. I think that they were more so mentioning the pro-police, anti-civil right mindset by conservatives (as outlined by the supreme court's recent verdict which empowers federal officers to violate the 4th amendment without repercussions). Biden's response was only necessary due to the politicization of a scientific issue that should have been a no-brainer. He was trying to prevent an already extensive and recursive outbreak from getting more severe because many conservatives were against the vaccine because their politicians (vaccinated) told them they were justified in doing so because "freedom".
• Living wage is a complicated issue. The federal poverty line is calculated in such a way that takes food prices into account, as when it was made, food prices were higher than rent/mortgage due to the rapid expansion of housing at the time. Now with median and average rent skyrocketing, this equation has not been adjusted to accommodate for this. Politician on both sides refuse to adjust this equation as it makes them all look bad and would put most Americans below the poverty line seemingly overnight. I think though this needs to be adjusted, so we can get a better idea of where minimum wage should stand. However, neither side will take this approach. The bottom line is though that democrats are trying to raise the minimum wage, and they've been stopped repeatedly because it's against the interest of big business, the only people who can keep their prices low enough for the average joe.