2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates: Do They Have Policies? What Are Their Policies? Let's Find Out!


#42

Bernie or someone to the left of Bernie is all I’m voting for, and I’m still hesitant on Bernie. It sucks that so much of American politics are filtered through the presidency but my politics are so outside the realm of national policy it would be fruitless for me to spend any of my energy or time even giving positive lip service to all of these milquetoast candidates. I think it might even be counter productive for anyone but Bernie to win, and that’s just a maybe.


#43

Nah, push for the candidate you want in the primaries, but please vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in the general. Any Dem would have a functioning State Dept and EPA at least.


#44

The same state department that has dictated foreign policy for this imperialist sack of shit nation forever? Why would we want them to function at all? When has someone with a D next to their name used that for anything positive since fighting the Nazis?
Edit: hell with the state department functioning as normal we probably wouldn’t have had the best news these past few years which has been the peaceful reunification process in Korea


#45

Maybe vote for the democrats because look at the other option. Voting is not the end all be all of leftist politics by a long shot, and the dems in the US aren’t the best to put it mildly, but it doesnt’ hurt, and a non vote is as good as a vote for the Republicans. If you don’t understand that, then shit what else is there to say.


#46

Iran Nuclear Deal from the Obama admin that Trump pulled out of wasn’t perfect but seemed like a pretty positive thing. The Nuclear Deal with North Korea in the Clinton years the Bush43 pulled out of was positive. Just to name a couple examples.

Not gonna fight about it. If you think R and D presidents have been the same… I just don’t understand how you get to that conclusion.

Also Korea hasn’t reunified, a symbolic promise was signed but it’s still an armistice and North Korea has been discovered to still be running secret nuclear testing sites very recently despite promises to denuclearize.


#47

Totally agree, really push for your candidate in the primaries but when it comes to the 2 choices swing to the left.


#48

I may or may not vote for them, but I certainly would be starting and stopping my engagement with them there and that’s only if I have people to vote for in local elections. I would actually expend energy, time, and propaganda for a left option. My state will likely vote for a R, but they may not if it’s Bernie. I’m not gonna waste my time fighting for a loser who only agrees with me that my friends shouldn’t die (as long as they’ve been means tested that it will be worth the cost or can afford it).

@Murph but both of those only come about thanks to the US’s aggressive foreign policy pointing invasions against both of those sovereign nations. These nations have nukes because of the US state department’s want to rid them of their current governments. I hope that the North Korean people are still working on nukes because if they aren’t and y’all get your way an Elizabeth Warren or hell maybe even a Bernie or god-fucking-forbid a Beto O’Rourke would still invade them if the negotiations aren’t going in the US state department’s way. I want a president that would rather disarms OUR nuclear program, not another nation trying to protect themselves from us.


#49

I DECLARE AN ARMISTICE

Sign here. I’ll go first.
download%20(1)


#50

No one should get to be president ever again imo, but if I have to vote someone in they need to be as far left as possible.


#51

Well I wasn’t bringing up the difference between Ds and Rs only that the state department is shit and that your examples are pretty null when you consider that all nuclear proliferation stems from a Democratic American president wanting to show how big his dick was by bombing a bunch of civilians but sure I won’t fight about the difference between D’s and R’s.

Wookiee (don’t know how to do the free hand stuff)


#52

D vs R could arguably be the most important question if you live in a swing state. But for those of us who can be relatively certain of how our state will vote (I live in Washington, we’re gonna be blue) I strongly encourage people to consider 3rd party if the candidate in the general doesn’t align with your interests.

That said, it’s a question for another time because right now is when voters have the most power to influence who makes it to that general election. And that means for most of the people on this site that it’s the time to push Left and push hard.


#53

We gotta pull Sanders even to the fucking left yall. He’s been saying bullshit about Venezuela


#54

Well i mean bernie won’t win. (weird how having a subpar record when it comes to people of color will do that to ya) But hey, he could totally poison the well again for the next general election, and when you think about it, isn’t that all that matters?


#55

if Bernie can’t win the general I doubt any one can. I live and have always lived in a rural red state and most people I know of all ages would’ve voted for him

Edit: as the democrats. I’m really expecting Trump to win again if Harris or (L FUCKING MAO) beto wins


#56

It’s not that he can’t win the general, it’s that he can’t win the primary. He’s got young, white, male leftists and not much else. He can’t build a winning coalition from them alone.

Edit to add: (At this stage, it at least looks like almost any nominee could beat Trump. Recent head to head polling shows all of them beating Trump by at least six points. Obviously anything can always go wrong and we’re a ways out still, but given that and Trump’s wild unpopularity I’m just not personally willing to take “electability in the general” arguments seriously right now.)


#57

You can’t win a national race by appealing only to the Dem base. The majority of the electorate is Independent and at most I would argue the median Independent is just left of center. I wish it weren’t so but that’s how it is.


#58

I really find the “poison the well” type of talk to be not only reductive, but pretty insulting to voters who didn’t like Hillary’s politics.

I voted for Jill Stein which isn’t something I can necessarily say I’m proud of, because I certainly don’t like a lot of her ideas. But I liked her politics a lot more than Hillary’s. That’s not Stein’s fault. That’s not Bernie’s fault. That falls solely on Hillary for not having a vision I could buy into.

Bernie Sanders did not poison the well and I’m not convinced that’s even a meaningful claim. Hillary was unappealing. She lacked a vision that could energize voters. Her message was essentially “more of the same”. And speaking personally, as someone who disagreed with much of Obama’s foreign policy, the idea of voting for someone even more hawkish was a tough pill to swallow.

If the best the Democrats can muster for this election is “Let’s go back to 2008”, I’ll vote for them to get Trump out of office, but I’m not going to be excited about it.


#59

fuck the electorate, go for the people. Over half the country doesn’t vote because they ain’t given anything to vote for, give them something to vote for, Medicare for all, free college, and maybe material answers to climate change and people will vote.


#60

*because there are systemic barriers placed against voting for huge swathes of marginalized people

I don’t necessarily disagree with some of your points, but that line is heavily disingenuous.


#61

That’s fair. More of a reason to focus our energies completely outside of electoral processes too.