foxchasefive.com

Simply put, Adam Drucker is wrong as usual. Let’s see why:

“Let’s say that, if elected, he would solve the world, in general. Well, this is why even if he was the best candidate ever, he would be horrible to vote for: 2000. In the year 2000, Ralph Nader took a small percentage of the votes in many different states, totalling about 2.5% of the popular vote. Not only does this show that, even WITH the backing of the Green Party, which he may not align himself with (IE, the 2004 election), but more importantly, his involvement was the REASON that Bush is the President of the United States right now.”

If you’re seriously suggesting that Ralph Nader would somehow cause Obama to lose to an old white man, then I think you have no idea how the real world works. If his candidacy causes Hillary Clinton to lose, so much the better. Besides, this still doesn’t show why he isn’t a good candidate, because if he won he wouldn’t be a spoiler anymore (and according to you we can assume he “solves the world”).

“Despite his mainly Democratic stance, in 2004 he received funding from the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”, the infamous anti-Kerry smear campaigners, leading to yet another Democratic failure.”

This is wrong: he didn’t receive money from “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth”, he received money from people who had also donated to that group. If you’re saying individuals shouldn’t be allowed to donate money to campaigns then I think you misunderstand our electoral process.

“More importantly, he does not support international treaties such as NAFTA, or organizations such as the WTO, which benefit us extensively through economics, and taking America out of such things would put our country in bankruptcy.”

This is the single stupidest sentence that I’ve ever heard you say, ever. NAFTA and the WTO have helped to contribute to a massive trade deficit for the United States. Taking us out of these organizations also would not put us into bankruptcy, because unless these organizations are giving us funding, then our withdrawal would at the very least do nothing and at the very most help balance American trade.

Also, Barack is anti-NAFTA, as is (the current version of) Hillary. Why don’t you just go vote for McCain?

“The only thing Ralph Nader has done thus far with his campaign is smear every single opponent of his. He has talked smack about Clinton, Obama, and McCain in copious amounts.”

Except when he talks it’s true. Clinton and Obama don’t advocate a single payer health care system. Instead, Obama doesn’t offer truly universal health care, and Clinton would punish people for not having health care.

“Nader refuses to say that he could be a “spoiler” to this election. However, the only thing he has succeeded at in his extensive political history is exactly this.”

In 1996, he wasn’t a spoiler. In 2004, he wasn’t a spoiler. In 2000, FOX News had more of an affect on the outcome of the election in Florida than Ralph Nader.

“If you want a candidate who is a strict liberal, who has been long-forgotten about, it’s Mike Gravel. He has as much of a chance of winning as Nader: Not an ice cube’s in hell.”

Mike Gravel wants to impose a national sales tax, making him at least as crazy as Huckabee. He also wants all the troops home in 120 days, which is impossible and moronic. He’s not much of a liberal or an intelligent human being.

“A vote for Nader is a vote for 8 more years of bullshit.”

A vote for Nader is a vote for liberalism, or in your case, the best you’re going to do.

Make no mistake, no other liberals are in this damned race. It’s Nader or nothing.

By Alex Zhao, who is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation, fascism, the US government, the War on Drugs, US Presidents, immigration, President Bush, children who are sick, the environment, and elections.