I really think a lot of politicians need much better training in handling interviews.
The correct response to this should be is that a fact?
Always turn the question around. Most interviewers in the fake news are fake and don't ask real questions. They make statements instead.
You have to then turn around and ask the question what makes you think that's a fact? Are you saying you have proof?
The statement made with this pseudo question is this: "I have undeniable proof that the election was not stolen."
That's what Rand Paul should have heard and then he should have demanded the host present this to the people, congress, etc.
Rand Paul handles this poorly. Most people do. Don't go on the defence, go on the offence. Throw your enemy.
Say you don't need evidence. When they say what? They go crazy thinking you're mad.
Then point out you don't need evidence to look for evidence.
They won't immediately get it. Don't get roped into explaining the logical fallacy too much just drop some little bombs like this.
Let it stew in their minds.
Ask questions like did the DOJ look. Also point out he's being a spokes person for the DOJ and Barr. He should bring them onto the show and let them talk for themselves or shut up. He says it's been looked at. Ask him if he's look at it.
In an interview with a hostile actor you must always put your interviewer back on the stand. Interrogate them. Challenge his position don't just try to promote your own.
Also ask him if he thinks the 2016 election was stolen.
Also ask him to define fact.
The correct answer to was it stolen or not is I don't know and that's what we're trying to find out. Personally I project a very high probability it was but when you're investigating you don't gamble. You also point out that it's journalists like this that are trying to stop people from finding out. Then ask why that is.
Also you've got to ask him about these investigations. Exactly what did they investigate and how. Also you want to focus on how complete these investigations are (thorough). You can make a fairly simple point the more you investigate the more you find.
The purpose is to quickly run him down to questions that leave him confused, that he can't answer or leaves him to admit he doesn't know showing that in fact he doesn't know anything.
If Rand Paul studies this kind of technique he'll be much better on the stand next time.
Remember, this is a TV presenter. He doesn't need any real intelligence or skills. All he has to do is be well presented and most of the time read from a prompt. Do you notice how even most of his arguments are reading from a prompt in a manner of speaking saying this said this and this said that? All he sees around him are prompts.
Your job on TV is to reveal him. To show how arrogant he is, how unqualified he is, what an idiot he is. To expose the fake news reader and pseudo journalist on TV to everyone for the whole world to see. To embarrass him and make it clear just how unworthy he is.
I really think a lot of politicians need much better training in handling interviews.
The correct response to this should be is that a fact?
Always turn the question around. Most interviewers in the fake news are fake and don't ask real questions. They make statements instead.
You have to then turn around and ask the question what makes you think that's a fact? Are you saying you have proof?
The statement made with this pseudo question is this: "I have undeniable proof that the election was not stolen."
That's what Rand Paul should have heard and then he should have demanded the host present this to the people, congress, etc.
Rand Paul handles this poorly. Most people do. Don't go on the defence, go on the offence. Throw your enemy.
Say you don't need evidence. When they say what? They go crazy thinking you're mad.
Then point out you don't need evidence to look for evidence.
They won't immediately get it. Don't get roped into explaining the logical fallacy too much just drop some little bombs like this.
Let it stew in their minds.
Ask questions like did the DOJ look. Also point out he's being a spokes person for the DOJ and Barr. He should bring them onto the show and let them talk for themselves or shut up. He says it's been looked at. Ask him if he's look at it.
In an interview with a hostile actor you must always put your interviewer back on the stand. Interrogate them. Challenge his position don't just try to promote your own.
Also ask him if he thinks the 2016 election was stolen.
Also ask him to define fact.
The correct answer to was it stolen or not is I don't know and that's what we're trying to find out. Personally I project a very high probability it was but when you're investigating you don't gamble. You also point out that it's journalists like this that are trying to stop people from finding out. Then ask why that is.
Also you've got to ask him about these investigations. Exactly what did they investigate and how. Also you want to focus on how complete these investigations are (thorough). You can make a fairly simple point the more you investigate the more you find.
The purpose is to quickly run him down to questions that leave him confused, that he can't answer or leaves him to admit he doesn't know showing that in fact he doesn't know anything.
If Rand Paul studies this kind of technique he'll be much better on the stand next time.
Remember, this is a TV presenter. He doesn't need any real intelligence or skills. All he has to do is be well presented and most of the time read from a prompt. Do you notice how even most of his arguments are reading from a prompt in a manner of speaking saying this said this and this said that? All he sees around him are prompts.
Your job on TV is to reveal him. To show how arrogant he is, how unqualified he is, what an idiot he is. To expose the fake news reader and pseudo journalist on TV to everyone for the whole world to see. To embarrass him and make it clear just how unworthy he is.