Facts are facts.

Precisely because facts are facts. The article I linked has facts. To most people reading the first 5 paragraphs, OP article is just pointless anecdotes telling us what we already know: that people will vote Trump, and do so thinking his policy will actually fix the fentanyl issue. That isn’t news. It’s influence fodder. Trump having a policy, and that policy being demonstrably ineffectual is news and shouldn’t have been buried under 8 paragraphs of rhetoric.

I’m a little confused as to how the title makes Trump sound good.

It’s pro-Trump because it lists both Trumps name (recognition), an issue (relevance), and implies people are turning to him as a valid solution (positive recognition) despite the article itself ‘eventually’ saying his policies aren’t one (deceit in plain sight). It wouldn’t be if Trump had not been mentioned in the title, or the title had a negative qualifier in the statement (ie: Fentanyl deaths are causing some grieving parents to embrace Trump’s empty solution).

Your choice of statistics is misleading. A ceasefire is not an end. It is a temporary reprieve. In the same poll:

Six in 10 Americans (60%) favor the United States supporting Israel militarily until the hostages are returned and about half (49%) favor such support until Hamas is dismantled.

So unless the ceasefire results in Hamas disbanding, or more likely, all the hostages being released reality dictates a ceasefire is not ‘this ending’. America wants Hamas to lose like it or not.

there is popular support by a wide margin not just at home

um, no. Reality check: Israel easily has majority support of the US population. Why neither party considers ending arms supply there a good policy to win election.

More than a little embarrassing that Belarus does a better job protecting their airspace from Russian drones than every NATO border nation combined.

Removed by mod

The title does make the article pro-Trump.

It takes what 8 paragraphs before statements like “The reality of fentanyl is that neither party has a magic-bullet solution.” Start to appear. Considering the average reader barely gets beyond 5 paragraphs and journalists KNOW this, it is standard agenda-forwarding writing.

You see this all the time with Faux News: 10 paragraphs of 'Bidenz comin tah take yer BBQ burgers away!" followed by “policy proposal does not encompass propane tanks for home use” in fine print where possible.

There is almost certainly a much better version of this article out there. I’ll edit a link in when I find it.

edit: here’s a better version imo.

Dramatic reenactment

Change ‘any’ to ‘all’ and I agree with you.

Sucks getting a taste of your own medicine eh? Let me know when that place gets so bad you decide it’s worth F’ing off out of it for good.

ofc

Seek a second opinion. That doctor is not listening to you. Something other than aging is going on and it should be properly investigated.

edit: is severe arthritis in your family (or any other bone/joint disease)? Are you exposed to large or long term doses of chemical(s) or radiation in your life through work or living environment (industrial zone nearby/upwind, or very old home). These are things I’d be considering.

Most elderly people I know take up knitting, but you wanna weave baskets while you ramble incoherently be my guest. Here’s your soup. Don’t spill it!

The Theme Song

Well I wouldn’t accept “I dunno” as an answer any more. “you are old enough now that it’s time for you to know because if you don’t people will take advantage of you”.

Every time they say ‘I dunno’ demand a single page report on the answer complete with at least 2 sources. No TV/Phone/Whatever until it is done. They’ll stop uttering that real quick. The key is co-participation though. Telling them something is important is meaningless when compared to showing them it is important by sitting down and helping them figureidout.

How you interact with them is the key to 90% of what your child learns from you. You’re already participating in their viewing. Use this as a stepping stone for dialogue regarding plausibility, and demonstrating critical thinking.

“Do you agree with that influencer? Why or why not?”

“What are the influencers motivations?” Dazzle them with possibilities they had not considered too.

“If I told you I’ve been to space would you believe me? But I’m your parent! Why is my claim beyond belief?”

“Can you verify what that person is telling you through reliable means? This is how I would do that”.

… and so on. Just do more of what you’re doing and up the investigation portion IMO. Don’t be afraid to learn something yourself while they witness it. Just be careful to avoid arguments as they’re getting to that age…

I could see a situation where Trump just doesn’t allow her to get a word in edgewise. Even if he says nothing but his usual incoherent word salads, if he can essentially bully her into silence by just throwing her off with his usual interruptions, firehoses of lies, and shouting down her responses

You know they have closed mics. How do you think this situation possible?

Pretty sure you could end around their TOS by connecting a PC with 2 Ethernet ports to the provider’s internet and connect your router to the PC with the 2nd port. In the PC’s OS bridge the 2 ports together, and disable the routers firewall.

Dr. ought to be wearing a football helmet or risks getting punched in the face.

🤨

Or living in a country where you’re clearly not wanted.