Your favorite comeback to "He can't win"?

[OptionsTrader]

Your favorite comeback to "He can't win"?

"If you assert he can't win, then you should take the following bet becasue logically it must then be true that you can't lose.

Give me 200:1 odds, and I'll bet you $1,000 Ron Paul wins. If I am wrong, you win $1,000. If you are wrong, you owe me $200,000.

Still think he can't win?

If so, prove it"

 

[USPatriot36]

70 percent of Americans are against the War, so if the Republicans elect a pro-war candidate they are doomed. Ron Paul is the ONLY chance of beating Hillary!

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Your favorite comeback to "He can't win"?

FU

 

[justinc.1089]

"If you assert he can't win, then you should take the following bet becasue logically it must then be true that you can't lose.

Give me 200:1 odds, and I'll bet you $1,000 Ron Paul wins. If I am wrong, you win $1,000. If you are wrong, you owe me $200,000.

Still think he can't win?

If so, prove it"

I don't like that one too much because it comes off as rude kind of. Its like saying "Prove you're right that he cannot win or I am going to prove to you he can win and that you are wrong." People just don't like to be told they're wrong blatantly like that, so I think its better to go with a more casual conversation type of response, not a proving argumentive type of response because there is little chance of giving them confidence in Paul that way. It just divides you and them even more in my opinion.

 

[Captain Shays]

Is that your only criteria for voting for a candidate, or do you ever vote on principle and your own convictions?

 

[Hope]

I tell them that that's what they said about Ronald Reagan and I tell them that Bill Clinton was polling at the same numbers Ron Paul is now at this stage in the campaign.

 

[Perry]

If Ron Paul had a dollar for every time someone said he couldn't win he'd have five million dollars. Wait a sec...he DOES have five million dollars!!

 

[Original_Intent]

True about Ventura, good comparison.................... but George Washington???? He didnt have Faux News to contend with and all the sheeple who hung on their every word. Not to mention all the lobbyists dumping money to his competition. George had it easy compared to Ventura and Paul. If Washington were around today it would be "Do you really want a president who disrespects the environment by chopping down cherry trees? Do you really want a president who has wooden teeth? Can america really handle four more years of George Washington?" He would be FINISHED.

I think George Washington was in reference to the war, not the presidency.

 

[ConstitutionGal]

I mention that Jimmy Carter was virtually unknown one year before he won the election. When he called his mother to tell her he was going to run for president, she asked him: "president of what?"

haha

I wouldn't bring Carter up because you just might be talking to somene that remembers that the main reason he won was because the NEA got behind him to get him to create the Fed. Dept. of Education after the elections....

 

[thehyperaspist]

He's the only candidate who _can_ win.

I respond that, to the contrary, Ron Paul is the only candidate who _can_ win the general election.

He has a stronger anti war record than hillary does, which has been and will continue to draw off antiwar democrats.

He has a compromise solution to the abortion issue which will be strong enough to hold the conservative right wing, which is threatening to bolt if Giuliani gets elected.

He has broad based middle-america appeal on the issues, and there's nothing america likes more than an underdog.

It was said that both Lincoln and Reagan couldn't win. Yet they did and went on to be some of our best presidents.

 

[cmc]