Would you vote for a candidate for president or other office who said he or she is in favor of restricting XYZ while he or she is doing XYZ?

For example, suppose you have a candidate who promises she or he will remove tax loopholes and place a higher tax burden on the most successful, all while she is aggresively investing amounts in the hundreds of thousands in tax-free, income generating investments?

Or suppose the candidate is a gun enthusiast who owns a number of handguns and semi-automatic rifles, and he is advocating stricter controls on gun ownership. Will this effect your vote?

Would you vote for someone who claims he wants to bring people together, end conflict between the two parties, but has never taken the opportunity to work with members of the opposite party and can show no compromise in his own record?

Would you vote for someone who taught your enemies military secrets then?

I don't think I'd have the chance. If they were guilty of espianage or treason they'd be in jail. If unable to hide the crime from the public, they couldn't very well hide it from the FBI. So, even if a candidate had committed treason, I doubt I'd even know.

Direct answer: No.

I would think it would be feasible to find some example of such hypocrisy in all candidates. As politicians, they all manipulate the truth to try to get elected. So if one was really choosy about not voting for anyone you had a complaint against, you could end up with nobody to vote for. Generally I see voting as choosing the best of a bad bunch.

This is true - no one is Jesus. I'm talking about blatant (think I specified that in my title) hypocrisy. I don't think you'll find blatant hypocrisy in every candidate, not between policy decisions they want to make today and the way they live their life today. So no, the point isn't being overly choosey, what I am exploring here is whether blatant hypocrisy (I think X is good for the country, but I'm not going to do X myself) would be a disqualifier.

What I am NOT talking about is little stuff, like Obama and his smoking cigarettes. Obama threw some big campaign out on his web site saying "quit smoking with me," and made a big deal about it for a while, then went back to smoking. He's supposedly on the patch trying to quit again. Big deal. Its tough to quit smoking cigarettes because they use freebase nicotine in them. If Obama asked me, I'd have told him not to even try to quit until his life stablizes, not smoke in public, say nothing about it unless asked, then be honest. "Yes, I smoke cigarettes, next question."

Even if Obama promoted some new big tax on tobacco, I don't think that would be hypocritical because he's going to be paying it too.

Hopefully, with all these clarifications, someone will be able to answer the question and vote in the poll.

Well, the poll is a little on the unattractive side unless one agrees perfectly with any of the offered options - it lacks an "Other" option. That's why I didn't vote in it.

So do you have a specific case in mind to discuss? If so, let's hear about it and we can discuss whether we think it's an example of hypocrisy.

You can vote for the option that most closely represents what you'd do, then describe the difference in a post. There is a range of choices there.

Or, you can not vote at all, and describe what you'd do in a post.

And no, I don't have a specific case to discuss - if I did, I'd have began a thread about it.

Then you have my 'pseudo-vote' ... I don't see hypocrisy as a black/white thing, so assess each case on its merits and assess each candidate in that light, along with other important factors, including their party affiliation and the policies of the party or parties involved.

In other words, if its a liberal candidate you like, it'd be a grey area and you'd support them, but if it were a candidate you didn't like, they'd be a hypocrite.

You're right.

One of the options should have been:
I'll vote for my candidate no matter what and justify it.

Oh wait, that was an option.

There are no hypocrites in this race, you vote for your favourites party's hypocrite, yet you voted to not vote for him in this poll. How about you would stop to lie for instance?

Have you been up all night? That didn't make sense.

Hi Ras..

This sounds to familiar..

Sherri

I think its odd - this poll has been up a couple days, and not one person was willing to to indicate blatant (not suggested, not implied, not sorta, but blatant) hypocrisy would effect their vote for their candidate.

Apparently, its a matter of "give me my agenda at any price."

I already gave you my opinion on why that would be - obviously nobody agrees with any of the options you provided. If there was a 'None of the above' option, I bet it would have been very popular.

No - that's not what I said at all. Perhaps try reading it again with a slightly more open mind?

I said from the start that if you want to consider 'hypocrisy' as a black and white, yes or no, boolean thing, then everyone is probably guilty - including, you me, and anyone else you can think of. Nobody is perfect. To consider it more usefully is fine, but because it's not such a black/white thing, the only practical method in my view is to assess each candidate on their merits.

Perhaps a parallel of sorts to help you think a little more openly is concepts of defense in a murder trial such as 'self-defense', 'mental incapacity', etc. Sure, Joe may have killed Bob, but do we stop at that point, saying "case closed - he killed him - nothing else is relevant"? If we don't also consider the contextual circumstances, and weigh the case on its individual merits, we are not giving justice a chance to be served.

However, this is an interesting point as a separate issue that possibly warrants its own thread:
I believe that as humans we can and do justify things all the time subconsciously as part of our day to day lives - justification is an amazing thing - you can justify anything if you want to. It's how we subconsciously (or consciously) work our own interests and agendas into our personal concepts of "logic" (among other things).

#1. I will secretly vote for a hypocrite if I like what he promises, but not openly support him/her.
#2. I will not vote for the hypocrite, I'll vote for the other party's candidate.
#3. I will make excuses for the hypocrisy and openly support and vote for my candidate
#4. I'll just stay home and not vote for or support any candidate.


1. Hypocrite....

2. The un-decided.
Not willing to do the hunt on what it is they want in a candidate..so they settle for less,and vote un-decided anyway

3. The Prideful.
Willing even so to live under a possible dictatorship for the sake of there candidate.

#4.
The loser..the possible reason as to why our country is falling by the wayside now..because he sits on his but and does nothing..nothing at all, no contributions period to society period.


Sherri

We could use a number 5 here?

If you ask me, and you should because I know everything, this is a huge misconception. We don't need more people voting, we need less. The uninformed and the parasites should stay home and watch American Idol which is their nature. Let the decision-making be left to those invested.


I'll bite. What should it read? BTW, you didn't read/comprehend one of the voting options.

Hi Ras..
Which one are you in question about as far as my answers? and this is your poll. Number 5 is your option to jot down..

I will add..How about..

Its your constitutional right to vote..I will educate myself politically and vote on a candidate that I feel will make a difference for the United States of America.

American Idol bores me to tears..I never watch it, dont know how anyone sits through it, but people have different taste.

Sherri

I considered Hillary Rodham Clinton to be a blatant hypocrite.
Which is why I wouldn't vote for her.

There is no consitutional right to vote in a presidential election. If you disagree, show me in the constitution where.