I agree with the testiness but IMO that is because exactly what I was saying. A lot of his positions are easily misunderstood if you have the average attention span of an idiot American and he is very accustomed to the media playing on that and then leading the viewer to a conclusion that is inconsistent with his actual position.
Case in point... he wants to eventually phase out federal student loan subsidies. Oh, wow, that crazy old fucker wants to cut student aid. What a heartless fuck. Until you realize his point is that the universities KNOW that since the feds back student aid they can charge fucking outrageous tuition fees that leaves students in debt for years and years after, in some cases without even a job to show for it. Getting the feds out of student aid would mean that the overall tuition would come down and make it more affordable across the board for kids to attend in the first place, and to be able to pay back afterwards. But in a sound byte society, even though any clear headed person should be able to understand that, the message gets lost if you can only pay attention for 10 seconds LOL
So you prove my point. Because while he would get frustrated, I would be able to articulate that better, so he is not a great debater, but what can you do. What counts is the actual position, not how well you can articulate it, although it helps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nation-x
I don't agree with you on that... Ron Paul is great at using simple terms to describe his positions... but that leaves out a lot. The way to "assail" his message is to probe for more details... and when you do that, he gets frustrated very easily. His typical response is to duck the question but when they keep repeating the question and point out that he didn't answer he get's testy. Romney does the same thing.
|