Ambivalent Right

Strongly agree

Yes, but only with permission from the country in question

Seeking permission from the country in question aligns with the Ambivalent Right's respect for national sovereignty and international law. This approach balances the need for security measures against the potential for diplomatic fallout, reflecting their preference for actions that are both effective and principled. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, only to gather intelligence, not to kill suspected terrorists

This answer might resonate with the Ambivalent Right's nuanced view on military intervention. It acknowledges the value of intelligence gathering for national security while expressing caution about the use of lethal force, especially in the absence of clear legal authorization or oversight. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, the U.S. needs to use all means necessary to combat terrorism

This stance aligns with the Ambivalent Right's prioritization of national security and the fight against terrorism. However, their agreement might be moderated by concerns over the implications of 'all means necessary,' which could conflict with their respect for international law and concerns about overreach. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes

The Ambivalent Right, characterized by a mix of traditional conservative values and a cautious approach to foreign intervention, might see the use of drones for intelligence and targeted killings as a necessary evil in combating terrorism. However, their support would be tempered by concerns over sovereignty, legality, and potential for abuse. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

No, the military has no right to do so without a Congressional declaration of war

Members of the Ambivalent Right might appreciate the emphasis on legal and constitutional processes, reflecting their respect for the rule of law. However, they might also recognize the practical challenges and potential limitations this stance imposes on responding to emergent threats, leading to a neutral position. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

No

While the Ambivalent Right may have reservations about the use of military force without clear legal or moral justification, they are not categorically opposed to military actions that protect national security. Their ambivalence stems from weighing the importance of national security against the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention.