3 votes

Less facts more explanation

Something I came to think of watching the interview yesterday was that I feel that Ron Paul presents a little too many facts, and draws to few conclusions. Essentially his point doesn't really gets across because he loses himself providing all these different facts or because time is limited so he gets interrupted.

For example when they were grilling him about Iraq. He tried to make the case that it's better to talk to people instead of just attacking them.

As motivation he gave examples about how Egypt and is now Islamic and hence less friendly with Israel. And while I understand his point, I think it's big risk many people missed it.

A far superior way would be to draw conclusions first, and then when the news hosts question him, he could go into detail.

For example, if he would have started off saying: "When we conduct an arrogant foreign policy in the middle east we often aggravate the countries down there. Which in turn makes Israel a lot less safe. I think we should be a strong, yet humble, nation"

Personally, I think that's a far superior way of getting your point across.

I'm just spinning ideas here, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do.

What do you think?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron Paul need foreign policy talking points

I think that whenever Paul talk foreign policy he should emphasize that "We should be a strong, yet humble nation" a la George Bush election campaign 2000.

Other than that I think he should emphasize that we're spread to thin around the world.

It's the Spending Stupid

Dr. Paul is really the only one addressing the real issue. All others want to tinker around with the tax code. It is not a revenue problem … it is a spending problem! Let’s get our house in order first; then let us deal with the tax problem by getting rid of it. Let’s use government user fees and maybe some tariffs. I find this argument works with my non-RonPaulian friends.

Please enjoy, "RON PAUL And All That Jazz"
http://www.dailypaul.com/176606/ron-paul-and-all-that-jazz
Central Pa, Lycoming County, Williamsport

Hmmm,

I think it must be very difficult for Ron to get a word in without being interrupted or cut off so my guess is that he gets the facts out there first, in case he is unable to finish the sentence. If he is allot more time then he is able to elaborate further.

I remember the first time I heard him speak at a debate in 2007 it was so refreshing to hear the truth. I was awe struck and had to learn more about this man and his positions.

Bravo! to Ron Paul for not giving up on us years ago.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Well

I feel that he gets into too deep in to the facts. And tends to sometimes loose himself in it, or at least lose his audience.

Like for example if he tries to explain what brought about the crisis in a debate, he ties in so many different things there's just no way his gonna be able to summarize it all in 60 seconds.

I feel completely opposite

I wish there were more details. I think a lot of people have this notion that "free market" means a return to a wild west, do as you please atmosphere with no regards for the environment, corporate wrong doings, etc. For me "let the market take care of it" works because I've researched the notion of free market economics and environmentalism, but I'd really like to hear examples and situations that prove that it does work so others can understand. His views have never been tried in the uS so there's no way to compare data so I feel like more detailed practical real world examples of how a free market solution would have helped or did help will ease peoples fears over trying something new and different.

The federal reserve was created in 1913

And we've only had an income tax since 1913 as well. So the assumption that Ron Paul's views haven't been tried anywhere else before is wrong.

But I do partly agree with you that sometimes more details is needed. Details regarding what the business cycle is. Details on why the federal reserve system is bad.

But there are ways to provide those details in a "simple" manner, I think many times it just gets difficult to keep up with.

The important thing is to keep it "simple" and draw a decisive conclusion.

Yes but

People don't care about what worked in 1913! The world is not in 1913. People need modern day examples. Forget the Federal Reserve issue, yes its very important, but I don't think its something people see as a hang up, and many agree about. I'm talking environment, corporate abuse, modern day problems that people have come to believe can only be solved by stricter control and regulation. People call him "crazy uncle" and such because they think the idea of a free market without controls is what causes these problems and the notion that it will actually fix them is so outside of the way they have been led to believe it seems nutty to them. This is what I'm talking about not having in the last 50 years. A country that doesn't try and regulate everything to death and appoint new agencies to tackle every problem.

I think you exposed the

problem.

"Forget the Federal Reserve issue. I don't think its something people see as a hang up, and many agree about. I'm talking environment, corporate abuse, modern day problems that people have come to believe can only be solved by stricter control and regulation."

If people RESEARCHED the CONTROL & POWER the Federal Reserve is welding then they would understand it's influence on all of the issues you listed and then some like candidates who are back by the banksters and their influence on the WORLD money supply.

People dismiss the cause and move on to the symptoms. It is all about following the money.

Corporations have close ties to the banksters and politicians. In my state, the polluters were the state dumping raw sewage in the water. How does implementing more laws and regulations do any good?

Laws and regulations are for controlling honest people, dishonest politicians and corporations don't live by rules.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

but most people don't research.

The Fed R inflates and devalues our dollar.
Even if the Fed went away many people will still fear the supposed negative impacts of a free market system whether we have sound money or not. Newt has praised Paul on his efforts and people I believe generally respect him there, but start to question his undying Libertarian theories in other aspects. The basic concept of free market Libertarianism is what people need to understand and since they won't research it they need to be told in ways they can relate to. People don't vote for one concept. The Fed is a huge issue, but simply getting rid of it will not fix everything unless the system becomes more free market oriented and less regulated.

Anyone agree with me on this?

...