Are You Voting For Fear or Hope? Questions From Hell!


Fear or Hope?

Which are you voting for in this Fall’s US presidential election.

Hell, any election, anywhere.

Are you voting for a candidate due to the promises they’ve made … and you hope they will fulfill? or are you voting against a candidate who scares the hell outta you?

What are you voting for? Hope or Fear?

Post your thoughts here and they’ll be read live on the air during the listeners’ Question From Hell! throughout September on This is Hell!




  • Jim Smith

    I’m voting for post the damn podcasts.

  • Mr. Positive (semi-erect)

    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.

  • David Dickinson

    I’m voting for hope.

    Everyone tells me that I have to vote for Obama because Romney is too terrible to contemplate. He’ll cut Medicare, increase income disparity, involve us in foreign wars, and do all sorts of other terrible things that will hurt our country. The problem is, that is not different from Obama. In fact, Obama is doing everything he can to get a deal to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. On two occasions — and one incredible instance when Boehner had said that he would vote for a bill that did not include a tax cut extension for the rich — Obama began his meetings with Republicans by proposing to keep those tax cuts for the rich. Equally dramatically, he snubbed Congress and ignored the War Powers Act by refusing to consult with Congress, as required by the law, after American forces had been involved in combat actions in Libya for 90 days.

    We also know that Obama is actively seeking to abridge our constitutional rights, especially those covered by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments through NDAA, HR347, and other similar actions.

    Perhaps Romney is marginally worse that Obama, but not significantly. A Democratic Congress would be inclined to limit what Romney would do, but it would be politically impotent to stop Obama. Furthermore, Obama has and will shut progressives out of Democratic politics.

    If progressives are to have any sway in our nation’s course, and if our fundamental liberties are to be protected, Obama must be defeated in the election. That would humiliate the neoliberal establishment and create an opportunity for progressives to ascend to power in the Democratic Party.

    I will not vote for someone whom I know in advance will strip me of more of my constitutional rights and do significant damage to our most important social programs. Instead, I’m going to vote for Jill Stein, who actually represents the ideas that I hold.

    However, I’m not a fool. I know that Obama is going to win. But I’m not going to help him. I knocked on hundreds of doors for him in 2008, only to be betrayed by him when he won. I will not make that mistake again.

  • MikeC.

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

  • David Dickinson

    Our fabulous host disagreed with me that an Obama loss could create an opportunity for progressives to take power in the Democratic Party. 1968-1972 was a perfect example of what I’m talking about. (Unfortunately, we picked a nice guy in 1972 to challenge a crook who fought dirty.) Since then, unfortunately, money has become a more corrupting feature of politics in general, including among Democrats. As a result, more and more Democrats have been leaning right for the sole reason that that is where the money is. That may account for why our fabulous host hasn’t seen how a loss by a party’s leadership opens doors for their opponents.

  • Joel

    You just proved Chuck’s point. Fabulous!

  • David Dickinson

    Really? Would you care to provide an argument to accompany your opinion, or should we simply accept what you say because you said it?

    I contradicted our fabulous host on the reason he gave for our government’s continual and consistent rightward shift and provided an example of how the loss of the leadership provides an opening for progressives. You, on the other hand, gave us hot air. I welcome serious discussion. One can only hope that you are capable of it.

  • Shane Menken

    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

    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

    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.

  • Joel

    David…you, me and the monkey are going to Mr. Positives’ house and partying like it’s 1999!

  • David Dickinson

    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.

  • Checkers

    Voting for hope. Hoping the world becomes a better place, since this is the only planet we got.

  • Mark Shipley

    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.

  • Mark Shipley

    haha you just said that I’m voting for hope and voting for Obama. That’s the wrong conclusion! I am voting for Jill Stein in hopes that making 3rd party votes a big enough voting block will actually get some of their issues taken seriously.

  • Mark Shipley

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