monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You asked me earlier if I was shocked about certain things in that region. Are YOU shocked that your political allies have different opinions than you do? I mean, you sound shocked here that I would dare to have negative opinions of a region that has a very high number of things about it that are legitimately negative - and not problems imposed upon the populace there. Problems that they created themselves and exacerbate through their own current actions, all while loudly blaming Liberals.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't exactly a hotbed of tolerance and progressive attitude and opinion.

then why did they vote Democrat for so long? because they're stupid losers and should have been voting Republican all along?

http://appvoices.org/2013/10/09/appalachias-contested-history/

http://appvoices.org

I don't know that you apply your same criticisms to inner city people (mostly minorites) who have a disproportionately high number of people on welfare as well or if your scorn is relegated to an area of the country who disagrees with you and I politically.

It isn't exactly a hotbed of tolerance and

I don't follow US politics closely enough to say anything about US liberals as a group. There may be scores of them with their ear firmly on the ground. Empathetic, atuned to the little man's concerns and aspirations. I actually know a few of them, directly or through the media [e.g. Michael Moore], so no generalization from me. But I can say that Clinton is not a good listener in my book.

Neither are you. Your post starts with "that's bullshit" and then proceeds to ask for explanations -- the sign of a closed mind who's only pretending to listen.

It'd be lying to say that you're the first "a2k liberal" who strikes little me as a bit close-minded. I try to not mention it too much -- gets you downthumbs -- but it's been an issue.

Not that the Repub-affiliates posting around here are any better on average, mind you. The US is famously polarized around rival ideologies right now, and it shows.

I’m not casting aspersions, you have simply been using an aggressive style as well as a few conversational tricks that make you appear somewhat hostile. No skin off my nose, it was an observation not a condemnation.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Democrats have tried that approach in that region for many, many years.

if that is the case - and they voted Democrat for many, many years - why/what changed? Ms. Clinton's messaging wasn't 'great but the change started earlier

President Trump, Mattis turn military loose on ISIS, leaving terror caliphate in tatters

BAGHDAD – Hundreds of ISIS fighters had just been chased out of a northern Syrian city and were fleeing through the desert in long convoys, presenting an easy target to U.S. A-10 "warthogs."

But the orders to bomb the black-clad jihadists never came, and the terrorists melted into their caliphate -- living to fight another day. The events came in August 2016, even as then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was vowing on the campaign trail to let generals in his administration crush the organization that, under President Obama, had grown from the “jayvee team” to the world’s most feared terrorist organization.

“I will…quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS,” Trump, who would name legendary Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis as secretary of defense, promised. “We will not have to listen to the politicians who are losing the war on terrorism."

Just over a year later, ISIS has been routed from Iraq and Syria with an ease and speed that's surprised even the men and women who carried out the mission. Experts say it's a prime example of a campaign promise kept. President Trump scrapped his predecessor’s rules of engagement, which critics say hamstrung the military, and let battlefield decisions be made by the generals in the theater, and not bureaucrats in Washington.

At its peak, ISIS held land in Iraq and Syria that equaled the size of West Virginia, ruled over as many as 8 million people, controlled oilfields and refineries, agriculture, smuggling routes and vast arsenals. It ran a brutal, oppressive government, even printing its own currency.

The terror organization now controls just 3 percent of Iraq and less than 5 percent of Syria. Its self-styled "caliph," Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is believed to be injured and holed up somewhere along the lawless border of Syria and Iraq.

President Trump gave a free hand to Mattis, who in May stressed military commanders were no longer being slowed by Washington “decision cycles,” or by the White House micromanaging that existed President Obama. As a result of the new approach, the fall of ISIS in Iraq came even more swiftly than hardened U.S. military leaders expected.

“It moved more quickly than at least I had anticipated,” Croft said. “We and the Iraqi Security Forces were able to hunt down and target ISIS leadership, target their command and control.”

Brig. Gen. Robert “G-Man” Sofge, the top U.S. Marine in Iraq, told Fox News his commanders have “enjoyed not having to deal with too many distractions and there was no question about what the mission here in Iraq was.”

Marine Col. Seth Folsom, who oversaw fighting in Al Qaim near the Syrian border, agreed. He wasn’t expecting his part of the campaign against ISIS to get going until next spring and figured even then, it would then "take six months or more."

Instead, ISIS was routed in Al Qaim in just a few days.

FBI says Sessions didn't have to reveal Russia talks

The FBI has put to bed a controversy whipped up by liberal critics of Attorney General Jeff Sessions over his contacts with foreign officials including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the 2016 presidential campaign.

An FBI email released through the Freedom of Information Act said that Sessions had no obligation to reveal any contacts with foreign officials unless he “developed personal relationships” with them.

The bottom line: His two contacts with Kislyak in 2016 did not have to be revealed to the FBI on his SF-86 security clearance application, part of his confirmation process.

Sessions has repeatedly denied that he talked about the campaign with the Russian, but critics have continued to question his decision to not list them on his SF-86, which contains a box to check for contacts.

The email confirms statements from Justice staffers that Sessions did not need to check the foreign contacts box.

If this is true, it's great news!

But you need to post a link, please.