foxchasefive.com

Andrew’s take on the debate with many editorial comments.

By then end of this debate I think McCain’s head will literally dig into shoulders, deep into his chest.

Either McCain is extremely old or he is a robot.  The common and repetitive responses make me think robot, but his movements, all rickety and stiff, makes me think old.  Although both can apply.

Whenever Obama is speaking, McCain will not sit down.  I don’t think this is an action of disrespect as my friends have said, I think he might need some Preparation H.  Or he could be a robot, because robots are historically non-sitters.

Read the rest of this entry »

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”). Read the rest of this entry »

So Alex Zhao just posted a travesty of an article. Not only does it support Ralph Nader for president, but it’s about a paragraph and a half long. And that paragraph and a half is all wrong.

Let’s break this down piece by piece. First, let’s assume that everything Zhao has said was correct. Let’s say he is the best candidate for president. 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. Read the rest of this entry »

+

So it appears that Ralph Nader is making his fourth run for President, though no doubt this will be the least successful of his runs. After all, both parties have managed to put out candidates that (at least seemingly) offer substantive change. Even the fringe folks have someone to back in Ron Paul. What could Ralph Nader possibly offer?

The answer is simply that he will offer us the same thing he always has: the voice of the Democratic Party that continuously gets silenced. The people who were backing John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and anyone else who actually believes in true liberalism will finally have someone to at least point to and support. And with Romney out of the race, not a single candidate (or if you’re a Ron Paul fan, not a single sane, intelligent candidate) can provide fiscal responsibility anyway, so you might as well go with the one whose policies would best help the nation.

Basically, only Nader is willing to both reduce our military spending and implement a single payer health care system, and that’s enough for me.
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.

Above this text is a new feature foxchasefive will be introducing in the Spring, what do you think it is? More details will come as we get closer to it being ready. Guess away!