Politics: do you vote for the party that says what you like, but does the opposite? Or the party that actually does what it says, even if you don't agree?

I don’t vote, but if I did, I’d vote for the party that says what I like, but does the opposite (this is a very vague question, so that’s why I didn’t take it seriously because that could mean anything to a lot of different people).

Neither one. I vote for the party that says what I like and works to accomplish that agenda.

Aren’t those the same thing?

I vote for the party who has tthe candidate who has the most conviction and part support to back their promises they make on the campaign trial knowing the strenths aweaknesse of the opposition to get in the way to stop them.

I’m not gonna cut off my nose to spite my face. I wouldn’t vote for a party that actively worked against my interests just because they were consistent.

I vote for the candidate that I think will exercise the best judgment. Campaign promises are only roughly indicative in that regard, because they’re aimed to appeal to the emotions of largely ill-informed voters. I would hope that the candidate, once in office, would base his actions on the facts on the ground, even if that means yielding some ideological ground.

This is where the whole “pledge” business serves the country poorly.

I wouldn’t vote for a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

I vote for the candidate/party who’s overall platform represents my political/economic philosophy.

While I remain an independant, in general that usually means voting for the Libertarian candidate when one is on the ticket, the Republican candidate in most other instances, and the Democratic candidate when the only opposition is some jackass like Rick Perry.

I would vote for a turd sandwich.

Both of those choices are made of FAIL and dildos.

And behind door number three, Robert?

Sorry @wundayatta, when it comes to politics in general, in my opinion there is no Door Number Three.

@robmandu Hmm. Just like Congress and the debt ceiling issue.