http://thisishell.net

I’m not voting. If that is their ultimate goal then I guess they win. If anyone thinks this country is and always has been anything more than a bunch of very wealthy people making up the rules for everyone else then they are sadly mistaken. There was about a 40 year run after World War 2 where things were somewhat tolerable for the working class. Even that was too much for the uber wealthy to condone. More, more, more is what they want and they are getting it. People will argue “look at the progress we’ve made”. Well where are we at today? Progressed to what? With all this “progress” we are worse off than ever before. The list of problems is too long to even espouse upon. I suggest doing bongs, eat gobs of ice cream , do not reproduce, watch dirty movies and listen to THIS IS HELL, flush twice as there is a lot going down.

I’m voting for that monkey on the home page. He looks honest.

You just proved Chuck’s point. Fabulous!

I have nothing to vote but fear itself.
Fear grips America like spandex on a fattie. We thrive on fear, our
political emotion is fear. The opponent is that monster under the
bed, and the voter is still only five years old. Since Demlican nor
Republicrat has anything to offer to the vast majority of citizens
in America, they play the fear card. The ‘black guy’ will destroy
us, we need to take America back. Ryan will push Grannie off a
cliff.

But people enjoy being afraid, in our
safe modern world we seek out fear, and watch scary movies for the
cathartic effect. Voters will watch the Presidential debates in the
same way teenagers watch “Nightmare on Elm Street”. Snuggie
pulled up tight to their throats, popcorn all warm and buttery, the
flicker of tv light mesmerizing them, just the same as the dancing
light of the campfire cast ominous shadows on the face of the poet
telling the Greeks of Hercules and the Minotaur.

But which side is worse, you may ask.
I nominate the Democrats, as they have allowed fear to delude them.
Their fearless leader is by many measures a neo-liberal of the
Strauss school. A Wall Street Pinocchio, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Goldman Sachs. Yet to mention this, or the many other non
Democratic measures performed by their chosen one, they insist, nay,
demand, that he is a good “Liberal” and that anyone who disagrees
with the policy must actually hate the man. When Dems say we need to
fear a GOP choice for SCOTUS, I ask about Eric Holder, and instead of
debate, I get to talk to the hand. They shut down their natural human
inquisitiveness, and then a realistic assessment of the Obama
Administrations policies becomes that monster under the bed, and the
voter is childlike in its clutches.

So I am afraid, I am afraid that fear,
and the cathartic joy this civilized, overfed, over-educated mob
thrives upon is now to dominate all politics for years. Instead of
enlightened self interest, as that fool Jefferson wanted, the
unwashed masses will not aspire to democracy, but will decline to an
enjoyable fear level, a comfort zone of “Oh NO” and “Look
Out!!”

Yet ask any psychiatrist, Change is a
big scary word.

Thank you

Shane Menken

ps, I am voting for Jill Stein, not out
of protest, but because of issues we both support.

This is a reply to our fabulous host’s misperception of what could happen if Obama lost.

In 1968, progressives were pissed with the Democratic establishment, and the Democratic candidate lost. Thereafter, they took over the party. Unfortunately, they nominated a nice guy in 1972 who was unprepared for the knife fight that he’d been invited to. (I’m not even sure that McGovern would have been a good president, and for exactly the same reason.) But when the establishment was weakened by their loss in 1968, progressives were able to take over the party leadership and nominate someone they wanted. In fact, ALL of the leading candidates for the nomination were peaceniks and feminists.

Since then, however, progressives have been asleep. They have not been active. Carter was the same kind of mirage as Obama, and he went to the right in office, too. In fact, it was Carter who began the attack on labor. Progressives could not foresee that, as they could not foresee Obama’s attacks on the Bill of Rights. When Kennedy lost to Carter lost in 1980, and when Carter lost to Reagan, those were blows to progressive activism that actually weakened us. The establishment held firm control of the Democratic Party, as it has ever since. The influence of money has been just too much to overcome.

Now, however, the situation is different. Yes, money has thoroughly corrupted politics at all levels. That corruption makes the political foundation of the establishment very fragile. In addition, progressives are very active and very angry today, more so than they have been since the labor movement or the Vietnam war. The establishment, except for its money, is actually very weak. They do not have strong support because they are correctly viewed as corrupt. If Obama lost, it would not be like 1984 or 1988 or 2004, or even 2008, when Democratic leaders were able to brush aside relatively weak challenges from outnumbered progressives. I those years, they were able to nominate corporatist candidates who would work against genuine reform.

But these are not those times. This time, progressives are pissed, and our numbers are growing. This time, if Obama lost, we could take over Democratic politics. We are willing to fight. We’re ready for a political knife fight. But if Obama wins, he’ll be able to shut us out at least until 2018. He’ll anoint either Clinton or Cuomo as his successor, dragging the Democratic Party even further to the right. Then, we can kiss our climate, our economy, and our Bill of Rights goodbye.

If we’re going to turn the tide now instead of hoping that our children can do it, then Obama has to lose, and his loss must be seen to be because he did not have the support of his base.

The base of the Democratic Party has always been progressive. It’s time that Democratic leaders were taught what happens when they ignore us. They must be punished. Besides, it’s like Chuck says, both your greatest fears and your deepest hopes are unlikely to be realized no matter who wins this time. Sure, life in America is going to suck for the next four years, but that will be true no matter whether Romney or Obama wins. The prize, however, is 2014 and 2016. Let’s try to keep our eye on our long-term goals. Focusing on the short term hasn’t worked out very well.

I’m wondering if I can HOPE that an Obama win will mean less chance of war on Iran. Would we have invaded Iraq if it were a Dem in the white house? Would we have greatly reduced the misery in Vietnam if McGovern were elected? Would the dirty wars in Latin America have been as pervasive, destructive, and vicious if Reagan had not won? I know that the 2 parties are largely the same on foreign policy, but I wonder if you could speak to whether some wars would have been prevented. I really wonder if we would have invaded Iraq under Gore.

If I were in a swing state I MIGHT vote for O but it would be like pulling a tooth.