Geopolitics is why we didn't ban Saudi Arabia aka ISIS Lite from the travel ban. Your assertion that he doesn't care about geopolitics is largely based on your own feelings.
O.o
I... I gave 5 examples. 5 examples of a world leader doing things that are counter productive to positive geopolitical relationships. I'm not sure how you can call that my "feelings" when I listed evidence.
You don't have to be a billionaire to have an agenda, but it certainly helps when you can pay the costs to actually implement it.
I'm still waiting for a list of approved sources from you.
Have you ever thought that maybe Confirmation Bias is leading you to confirm my confirmation bias? Your opinion means shit to me. I can look up mental disorders on the internet too. If only you could use some of that Buddha Level self awareness and clairvoyance to analyze your own motivations and intentions.
First, it's certainly possible.
Second, I haven't looked up any mental disorders. You'll note that I haven't listed any either so I'm not sure why you think I am.
Finally, who says I haven't? I know my motives and intentions. I'm politically left while being slightly liberal. I'm emotionally biased against Trump but have warmed to some Republicans. I'm emotionally biased again anyone who supports Trump and his policies as they are in direct contradiction to my own view as to what is or isn't morally right and I find the hypocrisy of their arguments to be extremely frustrating.
To be perfectly honest, if everything you wrote wasn't drenched in egotistical judgement then perhaps you could ever convince someone of one of your points. I haven't seen it yet. But if you could somehow channel that inherent, unique-to-you, resistance to bias into a non-incendiary format rooted in sound logic and reason you might be able to advance the Human condition. Or you can just "Lord" over everyone, and arbitrarily determine whether or not the opinions of us lowly peasants warrants any consideration.
I'm not resistant to bias. Never said I was.
What you ARE showing, however, is that you lack evidence to support your claims. While I throw out facts, you simply say "I don't know" or point out how I'm being judgemental and egotistical. I am, but that should be irrelevant. You should be able to refute my claims but so far, you haven't. You can't even support your own or answer simple questions such as what specific sources are valid, in your view.
To be perfectly honest, I really do think that you don't have anything but faith. Your views are true because they're your views. Because the people around you tell you the same thing. Because that's how you were raised growing up. My opinion means shit to you and that's fine. But my facts shouldn't, yet they do. I can't change your mind because you don't even know why you believe the things you do, all you know is that they're yours.
Your world is just a shadow on a cave wall. Mine, at least, allows me to turn my head a little.
Where's the LIE?
"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"
How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead. The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.
You really wanna play the grammar game? Alright. "It's gotten to the point" is not interchangable with "It's getting to the point" because one is past tense, one is future tense. Meaning "It's getting to the point where the levee is going to breach." vs "It's gotten to the point where the levee is going to breach." In the first part, the levee will breach soon. In the second one, it's already at that point and the levee has breached or is about to breach. Even so, the tone of the words as well as his past statements strongly imply that that his meaning is that the media does NOT report on them. Not that they are starting to not report on it.
How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.
Depends on which media. Liberal media tends to show people suffering or being persecuted softer. Conservative media tends to paint them in a harder image than actually exists. This is due to their audience. The conservative media audience doesn't like Islam or Refugees because they represent someone they should hate. Someone different. Someone who is "leeching" off their hard work. They feel that those who have lost everything should figure out how to solve their own problems. Ironically, they also are strongly religious. Also, ironically, Islam is considered a very conservative religion. Islamic people and conservatives actually would get along well and share many of the same values. But they're TOO conservative to accept another point of view on their faith.
We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage. You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad. Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.
Which is it Dave, America isn't so innocent and has it's share of our own killers, or Trump is a complete and total asshole for making that exact same point.
Err....
No. No it isn't.
He made that comment in defense of Vladimir Putin. Essentially saying that America has done some bad things, thus it's ok that Russia did bad things.
Had he made that point in relation to Refugees and Terrorists then it would be a favorable comparison. He would be saying that even though there are some bad people in other countries that might try to get into the US to cause harm, we have people in the US who do the same so it's ok since we don't treat our own citizens any different due to the mass killings they do both home and abroad.