ScissorsTrump is anti globalism, and his taxcuts and economic policies are there to make sure that outsourcing for cheap labour is a thing of the past, and that new factories and businesses will operate in america. The elites are pushing globalism because it benefits them and fucks everyone else over, but they have managed to convince a good chunk of the people that virtue-signalling is more important than jobs and national health. The poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour.
People responded to your other 'points' so I will mainly address this.
I want to dispel the myth that corporations fled the U.S. because of taxes and regulations. They fled because corporations are frankenstein entities designed to increase their profits no matter what, and so they naturally move to 3rd world countries where the labor laws and average wages are so shit that there is absolutely no way we could ever match them. All tax cuts to the wealthy do is limit the spending money of the middle class, which is what actually powers our economy, and keep them in debt and unable to climb the economic ladder through higher education, sustainable home ownership, etc. Real wages have been suppressed in the U.S. for decades now.
This is not all theoretical. Manufacturing declined mainly in the 70s and the 80s in the U.S. Reaganomics did not stem the bleeding, but it did vastly increase the income/wealth inequality in our country and triple our deficit.
If there is one element of Trump's platform that I agree with, it is certain aspects of his protectionism, such as opposing the TPP and being heavily critical of NAFTA. This is also true of almost all true progressive candidates, so I don't really see why that has to be bundled with his tax policy and deregulations (not to mention his ludicrous statements about forcing other countries to pay more for protection or whatever).
When Trump is anti-globalist, it is for the benefit of US corporations over their rivals, not because he actually seeks to bring jobs back. Everyone with any understanding of economics realizes that those jobs are gone, and assuring that the ones we still have provide people with a decent standard of living is more important.
Lastly, I'd like to take a closer look at a particular sentence of yours, because I think it's very telling.
ScissorsThe poor and minorities will benefit tenfold from actually being employed over getting handouts or being able to buy a cheap iPhone made with slave-labour.
First of all, conservatives have created a rhetoric false dichotomy between employment and handouts. Most of the people on welfare, food stamps, living in public housing, etc. are fully or partially employed, but a minimum wage job is not a living wage in this country. I have never seen the assertion that raising the minimum wage would lead to greater unemployment actually borne out in reality, it's just a myth created to support the ability of corporations to do whatever they want, from the side of the aisle that believes that people in entry-level menial jobs don't really 'deserve' to live off of them without climbing the ladder, even if doing so is not possible.
There is a reason why unemployment vastly decreased under the social programs of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and increased under both Bush administrations, and it has a lot to do with tax policy creating a surplus for everyone, because the middle class stimulates the economy much more efficiently than the wealthy.
Lastly, I resent the notion that 'handouts' are just some sort of meager, temporary respite from poverty on the level of a distraction like an iphone. Social programs benefit all of society in the long run, by bolstering the working poor and enabling social mobility in the next generations. When we cut such programs, we ensure that every cent that a working class person makes has to go towards food, clothing, rent, etc., rather than education or savings.