The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: You have been here longer than I have, so I accept what you say.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: A vote is not an "endorsement". (see in situ)

SteveMT's picture

You have been here longer than I have, so I accept what you say.

We are not enemies; we just happen to disagree on this issue.

As one doctor to another, we both want to care for our patients in the best way possible. One way is being a roll model. Although some people believe that physicians are only a source of knowledge and should not be held to the same standards that they set for their own patients, I disagree with that also. If doctors tell their patients not to smoke, drink, or eat junk food and they themselves do all of that, then that behavior is a "do as I say, not as I do mentality." If we practice what we preach, we could potentially have a bigger impact on patient care than if we did not follow our own recommendations. All I'm talking about here is consistency.

Likewise, what will have a greater impact on the future? Someone who talks against a candidate, yet votes for the candidate or vice versa? If a person believes that a candidate is not acceptable, yet they vote for them, and they subsequently win, what then? That is like our politicians who say one thing and doing another. Why should we follow their lead with this same kind of hypocrisy? If my logic is not correct, then it cannot be called logic. I sorry if you do not like this kind of thinking. This term "loyal republican" sounds like group-think, lock-step support. Why this when there is still a Constitution? We are not yet in total tyranny, so why think this way now? That is all I'm saying. There will be plenty of time for forced group votes after the fall. Why do this prematurely?