No shenanigans here, right?

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/131680-t...residents/

Black belt?


And I'm right!

Knew it before I saw it.

(04-23-2014 09:24 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Black belt?


And I'm right!

Knew it before I saw it.

Pretty much.

Thus the Dems opposition to disenfranchising.

Alabama hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976. Next.

Looks like the Democrats are hard at work.

Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

(04-23-2014 10:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Alabama hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976. Next.

you failed again tommy.

Now, let's see if you live up to your promises, and admit it.

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

The Alabama guys would know better than I, but I don't think you are correct.

Which one of the leftists here was ranting about there is not voter fraud? Yea, sure.

Which ONE?

(04-23-2014 10:11 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

The Alabama guys would know better than I, but I don't think you are correct.

They certainly would. I'm just basing it on my Ohio background... the counties that hold the major cities (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton, Toledo, etc.) go democrat, every surrounding county goes Republican. I would be surprised if it was that different in Alabama.

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

No those 4 in red are heavily pro-Dem counties.

(04-23-2014 10:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Alabama hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976. Next.

It seems a bit partisan to dismiss off-hand allegations of voter fraud just because the potential fraud didn't change the outcome of a national election.

Those are dirt poor rural counties for the most part. They are also largely black.

(04-23-2014 10:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Alabama hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976. Next.

That's right. State, county, and local elections don't matter.

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

They're actually sparsely populated, heavily rural, as close to the third world as America gets, and heavily, HEAVILY, Democratic.

(04-23-2014 10:15 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Alabama hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976. Next.

It seems a bit partisan to dismiss off-hand allegations of voter fraud just because the potential fraud didn't change the outcome of a national election.

And then put forward the argument that voter fraud doesn't exist.

(04-23-2014 10:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Alabama hasn't voted for a Democrat since 1976. Next.

What difference does THIS make?

Unlike your side's claim, Republicans don't favor voter ID because it disenfranchises Democrats, but because it discourages fraud... even when the fraud might BENEFIT them.

Here is the proof that the Dem's response to this is a lie.

But of course, YOUR side almost always only sees these things as 'us vs them' as opposed to 'right and wrong'. You've been programmed that way.

(04-23-2014 10:37 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:08 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those look to be suburban counties outside of the big cities... I'd guess that they are more likely to go Republican in those areas than Democrat.

They're actually sparsely populated, heavily rural, as close to the third world as America gets, and heavily, HEAVILY, Democratic.

That's what I thought.