Try the political quiz

Candidates  ›  Policies  ›  Foreign Policy

Democratic2020 US House of Representatives2020 US House of Representatives2018 US House of RepresentativesCongressional District 34California

David Kim

 

Overview Policies Discuss Ratings Themes Ideology

David Kim’s policy on foreign elections

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

Should the government attempt to influence foreign elections?

  Personal answerNo

David Kim’s answer is based on the following data:

Personal answer

Answer: No

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: David Kim is committed to transparency in politics and personally submitted this answer on October 13th, 2020

Voter support: Be the first voter to support or oppose this candidate’s personal answer on this issue.

ChatGPT

Strongly agree

No

Kim's stance on international relations suggests that he would agree with the idea that the U.S. government should not interfere in foreign elections, respecting the sovereignty and democratic processes of other nations. 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.

Strongly agree

No, and we should not try to influence any other country’s elections or policy

Kim's stance on international relations suggests that he would agree with the idea that the U.S. government should not interfere in any other country’s elections or policy, respecting the sovereignty and democratic processes of other nations. 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, but only to protect the country from human rights violations by a tyrannical ruler

Kim's platform includes a strong emphasis on human rights, suggesting that he might support intervention in cases of severe human rights violations. However, it's unclear whether he would support influencing foreign elections as a means to this end. 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, but only to address security threats, not monetary interests

While Kim would likely agree that the U.S. has a role to play in addressing global security threats, it's unclear whether he would support influencing foreign elections as a means to this end. His score reflects this uncertainty. 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.

Disagree

Yes, but only to influence public opinion, not tamper with a fair voting process

Kim's platform emphasizes respect for international law and the sovereignty of other nations. He would likely disagree with the idea of the U.S. government influencing public opinion in foreign countries as it could be seen as a form of interference. 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.

Strongly disagree

Yes

David Kim's platform emphasizes respect for international law and sovereignty of other nations. He would likely disagree with the idea of the U.S. government influencing foreign elections as it undermines these principles. 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.

Voting record

We are currently researching this candidate’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this candidate’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this candidate about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Candidate’s support base

Not enough data to provide a reliable answer yet.

Party influence

We are currently researching this candidate’s political party and its stance on this issue.

Updated 16hrs ago

Party’s support base

Democratic Party Voters’ Answer: No

Importance: Somewhat Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 1,706 voters that identify as Democratic.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this candidate’s stance here


Popular conversations

Join in on the post popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Border Bombshell: 8 Million New Arrivals Under Biden

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.The combined increases of legal and illegal immigration have caused the share of the U.S. population born in another country to reach a new high, 15.2 percent in 2023, up from 13.6 percent in 2020. The previous high was 14.8 percent, in 1890.Several factors caused the surge, starting with President Biden’s welcoming immigration policy during his first three years in office. Offended by Donald J. Trump’s harsh policies — including the separation of families at the border — Mr. Biden and other Democrats promised a different approach. “We’re a nation that says, ‘If you want to flee, and you’re fleeing oppression, you should come,’” Mr. Biden said during his 2020 presidential campaign.After taking office, his administration loosened the rules on asylum and other immigration policies, making it easier for people to enter the United States. Some have received temporary legal status while their cases wend through backlogged immigration courts. Others have remained without legal permission.

▲  1512 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6hrs6H

Trump Slams Zelensky As "Foolish" Over Russian Missile Strike

President-elect Donald Trump went out of his way to criticize Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over his decision to fire missiles into Russia, characterizing it as a “foolish decision” and even “the most dangerous” geopolitical development in recent days.Trump has met with Zelensky twice since winning the 2024 election. After speaking with the war leader in Paris last week, Trump declared that “He wants to make peace.”“He thinks it’s time, and [Vladimir] Putin should think it’s time because he’s lost — when you lose 700,000 people, it’s time. It’s not going to end until there’s a peace,” he continued.In his “Person of the Year” interview with Time, however, Trump took a detour from a question about Iran to blast Zelensky.“Iran recently plotted to have you assassinated. What are the chances of going to war with Iran during your next term?” asked Trump’s interlocutor.“Anything can happen. Anything can happen. It’s a very volatile situation,” replied Trump before turning his attention to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine.Elsewhere in the interview, Trump was asked if he would “commit to protecting Ukrainian sovereignty?”“I would like to see Ukraine—okay, ready? You have to go back a little bit further. It would have never happened if I were president. Would have never happened—” he answered.After being pressed about whether he would “abandon Ukraine,” Trump said, “I want to reach an agreement, and the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon. You understand what that means, right?”

▲  208 replies

Active 3hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6hrs6H

Pete Hegseth Slams Gay Troops Policy

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, has repeatedly criticized policies allowing gay people to serve openly in the US military, calling them part of a “Marxist” agenda to prioritize social justice over combat readiness.In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors” and in subsequent media promotions this year, Hegseth described both the original “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy and its repeal in 2011 as a “gateway” and a “camouflage” for broader cultural changes that he claims have undermined military cohesion and effectiveness.In a 2015 appearance on Fox News, Hegseth also argued these policies like repealing DADT “erode standards” in favor of political goals like social engineering.DADT was implemented under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s and allowed gay people and lesbians to serve in the military — provided they did not disclose their sexuality. Military officials were also barred from asking military members their sexual orientation. If a troop’s orientation came to light, it could lead to their discharge.The policy was repealed during the Obama administration, allowing openly gay service members.Hegseth writes in his book that he was initially ambivalent to the change but came to regret his passive stance, describing the repeal as a “breach in the wire” that opened the door for broader cultural and ideological changes in the military.On Thursday, Hegseth appeared to walk back his earlier remarks about DADT, telling CNN, “Oppose the repeal? No, I don’t,” and calling this report on his previous comments “more false reporting.”

▲  179 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6hrs6H

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies