If you had to call it right now, who do you think will be the President of the United States following next year's presidential election?
Obama, unless the Republicans succeed in this new identification requirement in order to vote or other dirty tricks they are cooking up. They can't win on their own, they realize that.
What is wrong with a person having to identify themselves as a citizen with a photo ID before voting?
No dirty tricks, 2besure. Just trying to make sure the people voting have that right as American citizens and no dead people are voting.
It's the corrupt Dems that want to let illegals and the dead vote. That's why the Dems have a problem with photo IDs being required to vote.
While I agree that there has been ballot stuffing, most of the activity around this issue has come from the Right using it to block votes by legitimate voters.
It's a nasty issue and I can lean either way. Make it very simple and cost free to obtain identification and I don't mind so much, but then again if it is that easy, fraud would seem to be easier too. Make it more complex and it is a barrier to the poor and uneducated.
Perhaps someday technology will allow us to solve this problem - face recognition, for example. The danger there, of couse, is that technology can be corrupted also.
Here in Tennessee, it was made a requirement but the state will provide a photo ID for those that need them free of charge.
I don't see this as "the Right using it to block votes by legitimate voters." I see it as the Dems being afraid they'll loss the votes of people illegitimate voters - illegals and the dead.
Of coures you don't see it. More accurately, you refuse to see it.
No, Pcunix, I see it for what it is - the Dems crying because they're afraid they'll loss the votes of people illegitimate voters - illegals and the dead.
If the Photo IDs are given for free like they are here in Tennessee, no one should have a problem with a citizen having to show one to vote. Unless, of course, you're all for voter fraud and wanting the vote of illegals and the dead for your side.
Where do they have to go to get them? What do they need for proof? What does it cost to get that proof?
Here in Tennessee, they go to the same place they would go to get a driver's license - the DMV. They need to bring their Social Security Card and birth certificate. They're free in TN.
Ct requires Id for voting.
State Id 8$
Birth certificate and SS card required.
Both are about 5$ If you have lost them.
I have to admit, I can't see a good reason everyone can't have a state Id.
Your given a birth certificate and SS card for free.
Did pcunix not explicitly state that it would be fine as long as it was free?
Re: Voter corruption: http://emergingcorruption.com/2010/09/t … nt-voters/
Re: Voter corruption: http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2010/ … estigation
Re: Voter corruption: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=344577
Nothing "Right" about this voter fraud.... Didn't know Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse had voter registration cards...
The law in most states is that you are required to have identification, whether it is a driver's license or a state-issued ID. Students in high school who are 18 are likely to have a student ID, as well. There is nothing corrupt about being certain that the American-based electoral process is without corruption and fraud.
Complaining about the "right" or the "dems" doing terrible things to skew the voting rights of the public does not fix the problem. DOING something to try to keep each side from breaking the rules is the right way to go.
Why is it so terribly wrong to presume that all these rumors of illegals are voting? In Washington State they were walking the beat, knocking on doors. In Pennsylvania, "New Black Panthers" were intimidating voters, I don't CARE what Eric Holder's office says.. we saw it on the videos, from different angles, recorded by different people with the same behavior and same actions.. It was not a conspiracy to make those dangerous people look bad.... It was to show how bad they are.
Wake up and smell the corruption! Stop being like Obama and BLAMING others for what is clearly a problem... Just freaking fix it! And if that means a picture ID, then GREAT!!! Get a stinking ID. They're not that expensive. Just save up for the thing.. two dollars a month for a year ought to do it.
Voters have a year... They should be able to drum up the money by then.
It is kind of queer this is an issue coming up on the next election! The problem is when you target areas with a high minority population and eliminating Sunday voting which what the day many black churches took buses of votes to the polls. It is a deliberate attempt to hinder those who are most likely to vote for President Obama again.
I remember when blacks in the South were made to take a history test in order to be able to vote. While whites did not have to. The whole thing had a feel of the Jim Crow days.
It is a sad day when a political party must resort to these types of tactics in an attempt to win. It is like Tonya Harding having her husband bust Nancy Karrigan in the knee because she way Tonya's strongest competition! Typical GOP dirty pool!
What is keeping that church from using their bus to drive voters on Saturday? Excuses?
"They can't win on their own, they realize that."
Republican dirty TRICKS? Kidding right?
http://www.walb.com/story/16104533/12-i … oter-fraud
If all goes right...Romney should be next US president.
Are you from GA? I noticed the WALB link. That's Albany, GA - right down the road from me!
Dirty tricks like oppressing or frustrating the minority vote. Have you forgotten history?
Black victimization (oppression) - past and present - is a hoax white people continue buy into. I have researched American history throughly over the last few years, and I have only found a few incidences in the DEEP South of voter irregularities (e.g Little Rock, Jacksonville). Amazing the extent American history has been re-written!
No question white people back then wanted their own people to represent them . SO WHAT!!!!! Blacks have been voting their color since 1965. In fact, in many cases last 30 years there were gerrymandering efforts (led by white people) ...just so blacks could elect blacks. Additionally, blacks always had the right to create their own political environments prior to 1965. . I'm sure thats what white people intended them to do before the Voting Rights Act (1965). It is the blacks who, on their on volition, demanded integration (into the political / living arrangements of the very people who were their brutal oppressors?! hmmm). They GOT it. It was a legislative gift - not a constitutional right. This is what one people did for another. An Extraordinary thing!
White people have followed the letter of the law since integration was forced on them. In Compton, black elected officials continue to play dirty tricks with the Hispanic voters -- and Eric Holder does NOTHING
Yeah, and 6 million Jews were not killed by Hitler. Whatever makes you sleep better at night! Who do you think write the history books anyway? Those who want to rewrite history. Duh!
I'm not sure if I'm fully comprehending your message, are you saying you think integration is bad and segregation is good?
HOLY COW! What the HECK does Hitler hv to do with this discussion?!
Integration or separation - by what ever means - is neither bad nor good . It is all a matter of whether a political/and economic environment can function & past the test of time (e.g. is Muslim/Christian integration effort working in Nigeria?). White Christian males were 100% of the political and economic power structure of American from 1790 to 1964. American society was consistent in structure with EVERY society during that period of time. It was also consistent with every societal structure in recorded human history. White males should NOT be condemned in any way for resisting a social engineering experiment (civil rights). Has the 45 year experiment worked? How many in America today are preparing for America's complete political/economic collapse?
"Everyone should have been integrated 100 of years ago"
The NAACP invented the concept of integration in 1910. It took some years for it to become a reasonable effort to try. Again, there was no constitutional right to it. White people deserve to be congratulated for attempting such a mind-boggling thing! Further, where is integration being practiced outside Western Civilization countries? Or maybe you want to say China did the right thing when they "integrated" Tibet into their country? Many other examples here...
AEVANS: -And I don't believe any people are dirty and corrupt. STRANGE thing to say AEvans.
Blacks must stop the guilt-tripping ...and white people must insist they do it. Black victimization is a MYTH, past & present. Blacks need to take responsibility for the plight of their people. It would also be nice to see blacks recognize all the great thing white people have done for them - past and present.. Won't hold my breath for that...
LOL! White supremesis and skin heads claim that the Holocaust is a hoax an not real. LOL! That was my point in response to:
"Black victimization (oppression) - past and present - is a hoax white people continue buy into. I have researched American history throughly over the last few years, and I have only found a few incidences in the DEEP South of voter irregularities"
I am not sure how old you are, but you must be young or you would remember that the KKK just to stand outside voting station, just daring black to vote.
AGAIN, what does white supremacy hv to do with this discussion. Or the holocaust. Good grief.
"that the KKK just to stand outside voting station, just daring black to vote."
Really? Well they were obviously very unsuccessful because according to US voting figures for 1963, 42% of all eligible blacks were registered to vote in the South. In Miss, Ala, and Ark, yes, there were some voting irregularities. But these three states were also economically depressed. Blacks also had EVERY right - pre 1964 - to create their OWN political environments (towns, cities). People should NOT forget this fact. Between 1960 and 1965, blacks DEMANDED integration, and in these four short years, white people gave the black race what they demanded. This is the correct interpretation of the civil rights movement. Blacks were not victims of disenfranchisement or discrimination. White people hv continually given this racial group everything they hv demanded - not constitutional rights, or moral rights, but integration rights...something no other people hv ever received from another people in human history!. Blacks also received affirmative action programs, double standards, set-asides - gifts for being a certain race. This is what ONE people hv done - and continue to do - for another. Appreciation for all this is well over due!
There are none so blind, as those who will not see. I have read you profile and don't believe there is anything I can say to make a bit of difference in what you believe!
Thanks for sharing, Peace out!
I do think affirmative action will be over turned through the courts over college entrance rather soon, say maybe five years.
It gets closer and closer every year.
Not taking sides just stating an informed observation.
This is by far the most deplorable thing I have read here so far.
It's hard to believe that anyone actually wrote the above post, let alone believes what it says and implies.
Ummmm....People are people and it isn't about the color of a person's skin. Our blood runs red when cut and all of us are intelligent. Everyone should have been integrated 100 of years ago.
You are saying a legislative gift? It is honestly every man and woman's constitutional right. Sorry to say but our own race has not always followed the letter of the law. They are just as dirty and corrupt as the next person.
White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. all play dirty in politics. Again nothing to do with the color of a person's skin.
"Blacks have been voting their color since 1965."
I venture a guess that the total number of whites "voting their color" exceeds the total number of blacks "voting their color." Besides, blacks have few opportunities to "vote their color," because there are so few black candidates for political office.
Voter id to confirm citzenship sounds like a reasonable idea, right? Until you remember that some people don't drive, don't have passports and don't carry state ids but they, like my grandmom, have paid taxes and were born in the country. Most of us are too young tio remember the unintended tragedies occasioned by similar efforts to qualify voters. Got to be careful. The devil is in the details.
To answer the question as to whose going to win next November, it will be a Republican. Don't know who at the moment but Obama doesn't have the record and even his staunchest supporters in the media (Chris Matthews youtube video slamming Obama wenbt viral) are deserting him. They seem pretty fed up with him. That's a bad sign.
Government issue Id cards would solve all problems and make things like checking citizenship or terrorists so much easier.
I can't see the con to this so I wonder why we don't have them.
As of October in Connecticut our drivers license now has a gold star in the corner which signifies something federal.
Has this happened in any of your states?
Obama. I'm in the UK, not a liberal, but still think he will be home and dry, 2012.
Unless he dies in office or otherwise leaves the presidency, Barak Obama will remain president of the US throughout the calandar year 2012. This is because his current term does not end until January of 2013.
Now that the economy is showing new signs of positive movement, there is talk about ending the Afghan war early and unemployment is getting better there is renewed hope that Obama will get another term
Someone corrupted, in the pockets of big business, and totally out of touch with the real world. Just like our previous presidents.
Yes, sadly whoever wins that is very likely to be the case . I often think that it's almost always the wrong people who want to become politicians in the first place. Ordinary people are never really represented at all.
How is Obama corrupt? Ah, please do not laugh at my question...
... resisting... urge to laugh...
The guy decided to issue an executive order to completely ignore congress.
He's involved in numerous undeclared wars -- many that he started.
Yada yada yada - the guy's a turdburger.
You forgot the communists and "Muslim Brotherhood" members of his cabinet and advising staff, the gangster politics he used to be elected, the force, much like union thugs, to buy health insurance in his "obamacare" plan...
And, further... how in the HECK did he manage to get the Nobel Peace Prize??? Intent is not a reason! He's done nothing for peace... he's allowed wars to continue in ridiculous places: Libya, anyone? He's funding terror, he's paying Brazil to drill OUR oil, to sell to US!! He's refusing the Keystone pipeline in an election cycle!!! he's force-feeding us yogurt and taking away tater-tots (thanks, Michelle),
Further... what about those gems he put in the Supreme Court?
your trying to resist the urge to laugh? You just saif Ron Paul would be president! I couldnt resist the urge to laugh.
The President in 2012 will be just as you described, Barrak Obama!
i don't know but hi/she will be Someone corrupted, and totally out of touch with the real world. Just like our previous presidents.
Me. You heard it here on hub pages first. Yes, there will be a lot of corruption involved in making it happen; but fear not. I'll make sure there's a chicken in every hubber's pot. Stolen from the pots of people who are stealing our articles.
Lots of other changes on the horizon too.
It'll probably still be Obama.
The GOP field is full of nutjobs and fools, with one or two notable exceptions.
But the GOP won't nominate Ron Paul, because he would cut Defense and Oil Subsidies along with the Dept of Education and Medicare and Social Security.
And the GOP won't nominate Mitt Romney because of RomneyCare (and probably the Mormon thing isn't doing him any favors either).
So the only two GOP candidates worth a damn won't get the nod. The rest of the field are so terrifyingly stupid or insane (or both!) that liberals will turn out in droves just to vote against them, even if they're a bit disenchanted with Obama. Unless some unforeseen disaster happens between now and next November (or the GOP wises up and nominates Romney), Obama will get his 2nd term.
It's a real shame that the other candidates and the news media so often either ignore Ron Paul or try to belittle him. Especially sonsidering he brings lots of genuinely good ideas to the table and firmly sticks to his political convinctions ( no flip flopping). It doesn't speak well of the political process that this occurs, but then big business is so embedded into the entire political process now that it's not surprising.
I personally think that the GOP will vote for Romney as their candidate due to the constant gaffes and sensational stories circling the other candidates. Romney isn't well liked in the party but he's been battle tested and seems very professional compared to the other candidates. The anyone but Mitt attitude will fall away once people realise there isn't anyone even close to being suitable.
You think Huntsman is a nutjob? He's my first choice, but I could live with Mitt.
Actually, I forgot about Huntsman. Which is part of his problem: forgettability.
icount, the media are not Ron Paul's problem. His problem is that the GOP knows he'll cut defense and the other GOP sacred cows right to the bone, along with the stuff that the GOP hates, like SocSec, Medicare, Dept of Ed, etc.
Romney is probably the most electable candidate on the field so far, but I still say the GOP won't nominate him: he's not far enough right for the ideologues who are the vast majority of those who turn out for primaries. They'll vote for Perry or Cain or (Heaven help us) Bachmann in spite of the many many good reasons not to, and they'll vote against Romney because of the good reasons to vote for him.
With Romney, I don't actually think he holds many firm political beliefs left or right. He seems to simply want to be president and to be in powerful positions so kind of morphs into whatever he feels is required on him. There's barely an issue that he hasn't flip flopped on. The party is in the business of winning elections though of course, and he's their best opportunity to do so. That's why I think more republicans will eventually bite the bullet and get behind him, albeit begrudgingly.
I can see scenarios where Perry, Cain or Gingrich win the nomination but I think they're all longshots. Bachmann I think has zero chance of getting her parties nomination. She holds quite extreme and illinformed views that manage to turn people off regardless of party affiliation. If she does somehow win the nomination, she'd be a dream opponent to stand against. I can't see her numbers improving from here on in. She'll likely cash in and become more of a celebrity figure like Palin did.
"I could live with Mitt."
Oh, really. Is it his hair that turns you on to Mitt?
My first choice would be Ms. Clinton, then Obama and then almost any Democrat that ever breathed and THEN dear Mitt.
But yeah, he probably wouldn't be any worse than George..
I'll be voting for Barack and hoping that enough of the Right stays home to avoid any uncertainty about the results.
Yes, Ralph. I just love Mitt's hair. The graying at the temples makes him look so distinguished! I voted for Bill C. for the same reason. Clinton still has fab hair.
Huntsman seems like a "reasonable guy" but he's as dull as rice pudding. Too bad. Smart guy. Obviously able to work with Democrats. But he comes across as weak-kneed.
You are actually saying Ron Paul is NOT one of the nutjob fools?
I'm voting Ted Nugent or Santa Claus! i havn't made up my mind yet.
I know you're thinking" Surely, you must be kidding ?"
No I'm not kidding;and please don't call me Shirley !"
Well let's see.. Huntsman and Romney have the same ancestor Orson Pratt who was an original of the twelve disciples of Joseph Smith (mormon fame) ( or infamy if you want to look at it that way).... so if either gets elected you know the other will be in the cabinet at the least or even tapped as VP! Their church clout got them where they are today , no doubt about that. Even Romney sr. who was gov. of MI at one point used his church affiliations. Normally I don;t mind voting if the person is religeous, but Golden plates, translated w seer stones. Give me a break. It was a ruse to get the savages under control and docile with a religeon, or even use it as a reason to slaughter Indians because they were scalpers who fought against lamanites and had dark skin.'oh and they were lazy.. ok Done finished transcribing.. Let's pack up and go preach to Indians that they are dark and evil and maybe they'll be our friends.! WHAT the FRACK!
Wow. How very offensive. Some people can't even answer a simple question without belittling someone.....especially if they're religious. I hope you feel better about yourself now.
Indians scalping people is a mis-conception. Custer's men scalped the Natives, not the other way around....
Romney and Huntsman's religion is irrelevant, or should be irrelevant. (There are plenty of other reasons not to support Romney!)
Well, this week shows Newt in the lead. Next week, who knows? It depends on what candidate opens his/her mouth next.
It's far too soon to tell. I would really like to vote FOR someone but it looks like I'll be voting whoever is running against Obama.
Anybody but Obama.
"Thank you for your support.....
and by the way, you have a nice butt"
I'm not sure why you posted this as a response to my post as opposed to someone else's but flattery will get you know where, Greek. I'm still voting the whoever is running against Obama.
I must say it bothers me more than a little that you'd be complimenting my butt.
would you vote for Cain if he ran against Obama?
What if he had grabbed your butt without first asking?
What if he had grabbed the butt of 5 or 6 other people without asking?
Yes, I would vote for Cain over Obama.
As for him grabbing butts, if that's what happened, I seem to remember a guy named Clinton and the things he did while in office as well as the things he was accused of while running. I don't recall Cain being accused of rape.
Be honest. Does Cain lool like he's smooth enough to grab a butt without getting slapped?
LOL! Love the pic and comment, Greek One...
Haha, I got a good chuckle out of the Herman Cain pic and comment. Thanks for that.
Gary Johnson is great, I enjoy listening to him every time he is given a chance to talk.
They will not let him in the debates which strikes me as odd as some of the other candidates are pulling the same poll numbers.
My pick: (not my choice)
As has already been said, it's too early to tell. However, the GOP aspirants seem to be self-destructing right and left, and in the latest Pew polls Obama leads all the potential GOP candidates with Romney being the closest to Obama. Quite close, actually.
Not close enough, it wont happen, IMHO, Rubio will be the next experiment. They're good at that,(the GOP) social experiments. If I had to bet my life savings on 2012, it would be on Obama. There is no serious contender. And besides, the GOP are showing their desperation. They may have got away with it with Bush Jnr (idiot) but not again.
It really does not make any difference who wins, the government (controlled by the banksters) will still get in. It is simply the illusion of choice. Puppet Obama reads his lines from the same script as did George Bush, and so will the next President, whoever he is . . . with the possible exception of Ron Paul - whom they would never allow to be President anyway.
Not that I see any change coming down the pike. But, I would have to say President Obama will be re-elected.
I was looking at the betting odds earlier and the general feel appears to be that it's 50/50. If the enconomy was anything other than dire I think it'd be a shoe-in for Obama. As it stands, I think Romney would stand a chance against him, but as for the other candidates, I think they would struggle against him.
Me thinks Obama has a chance at a second term. unlikely but a chance !
@Longhunter.....Don't you get it? There aren't supposed to be any illegals. That's racist.
For the life of me i can't understand why we don't have federal ids.
Newt has a chance but so does Obama...wouldn't count him out yet...and no, I did not vote for him...just know that if he talks the 'talk' that folks want to hear...he may clinch the nomination.
and this has nothing to do with the question but two things sadden me: 1. when someone is elected to our highest office they seem to all suddenly have amnesia and forget all of the promises made prior to been elected. 2. the congress controls what happens really...so if the twain never meet, then little changes; power struggles such as resolving our monumental debt cause lack of faith in us with world wide leaders who will turn away from our 'dollar' if we do not get ourselves together.
I believe Newt might pull it off.
Anybody but Obama! I will vote for ANYbody but him. Period.
And, regarding the poster who asked if having to show a photo id should be required for elections....
Of course! It should be required!
Those who don't drive, etc, can go to their local library, sheriff's office, or some place like that to get one. This wouldn't be hard to set up. Just prove you are a citizen of the U.S. and get a voter id card with photo. Simple enough.
A person voting in the United States of America needs to PROVE their citizenship to vote.
Voting is a privilege and should be held sacrosanct. Period.
The problem is getting the Id. Here in my state, a birth certificate and Social Security card are not valid for obtaining an id. You have to go to the state and pay them $43 for the document to take to the drivers license bureau to get the free photo id.
That's b.s., perhaps unconstitutional. In Michigan they try to make you provide a photo I.D. (driver's license, passport or something similar), but you can sign an affidavit that you live in the district where you are voting. Sometimes I show my driver's license and sometimes I refuse and go the affidavit route. One of the poll volunteers tried to argue with me last year, claiming voter fraud was a big problem. I gave her a little lecture, including the fact that I'd been voting there for 40 years.
Obama will be a two term president......only because of a split Republican party
I'd bet on Obama now:
- economy is improving
- the vile Newtster is rising (ugh)
Obama, unless something spectacular happens.
Newt has too much baggage and a truly repulsive personality to carry a win off against Obama. Make him the nominee if you want someone to say nasty things to the President's face if that'll make you feel better but don't expect a win.
Romney is allowing his own wealth to cripple him. Now I hear he IS going to release his tax returns...but only two years. Again, the question will continue to be - what are you hiding from us in the previous years. His campaign needs to rethink things, fast. Of course, people will need to overlook the Mormon thing too and that's just going to be too much for many Americans especially if they go googling what Mormons stand for (beautiful amount of misinformation out there to scare yourself with...of course, some of the true stuff is going to seem pretty strange too to the unindoctrinated).
Ron Paul...is Ron Paul. You've got to say this is his last chance at running (he'll be 80 next time around) and I wouldn't be surprised if he takes the support he is getting and finally runs as an independent this time, creaming voters off the bottom of either side.
Santorum will be next to drop out so he's not worth consideration.
Does Obama deserve reelection? Meh, not in my view but considering the alternatives the Rs gave us this time around, I think he's a shoo-in.
Gonna be Obama again. Mainly because the Republican candidate will be weak compared to previous candidates.
if mickey mouse suddenly jumped into the race, got the endorsement of donald duck, choose buggs buny as his running mate and daffy duck as his secretary of state,.....
and if by some crazy mirracle this odd assembly WON the vote in november of 2012,.....
to answer the ORIGINAL QUESTION,.....
Barry Obama will still be president in 2012.
the inauguration isnt until january of 2013.
hells bloody bells students,..... pop-quiz,..... trick question
BZZZZZZZZZZZ,..... wrong answer... thank you for playing.
by Sam Dolloff6 years ago
With the debates underway, and the adds starting to air. The 2012 elections will be here before we know it. I have my favorite candidates I am wondering what others think about the lineup? Please be...
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
by Suzette Walker5 years ago
The Presidential election of 2012 has been going on forever it seems. What can we, as a nation, do to make the presidential political process better? The election laws we enact don't seem to make the...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
I've always said that I didn't think Mitt would win in SC, and now Newt is ahead in the state in several polls. The GOP has gone so far to the right that they don't want a moderate. It just boggles my mind that any...
by American View6 years ago
What do you think of this ticket:Huntsman/Bachmann 2012I really like this combonation, not sure it will happen. What tickets do you Like?
by Jo_Goldsmith115 years ago
I have been watching the latest on the Republican show down for the upcoming primary. I am unsure as to why we still are getting the same of what put us in the mess we find ourselves in now. Could it be, that Newt or...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.