Less facts more explanationSubmitted by Poita_ on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 12:56
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?