Yea, it turns out that in the throes of grief we’re pretty fucking vulnerable to conmen - this is why elder theft often takes place right after the loss of a spouse when someone falsely offers comfort.
That’s a funny way to say “Trump campaign manipulates emotions of grieving parents”
Instead of downvoting because you think the title makes the article pro-Trump, people should actually read the article
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.
That article is pretty different. It barely touches on the kneejerk reaction from the right, which is the point of OP’s article. It doesn’t get in depth with voters at all, tbh.
If you wanted an article discussing the facts of drug smuggling, yes, your article is short, sweet, and to the point. However, all of that content AND MORE is included in the original, since the point of the original is how people have shifted right on drug policy, despite there being no evidence for Trump’s statements.
I’m a little confused as to how the title makes Trump sound good. Facts are facts.
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).
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 think you may missed the point of the article. Its not really an article about the Fentanyl crisis. It’s an article about political rhetoric.
Remove the word Fentanyl and replace it with a number of other issues and the result is similar. Trump brags about doing things and talks tough but most of the time he does nothing. Democrats don’t really brag about it, but many times put plans and policy into action to address the symptoms or the underlying cause.
The point of the article is that Democrats aren’t doing so well communicating to voters that Democrats are actually governing with action and solutions and not just talking. However without bragging about it, Democrats get no credit with voters. The article postulates that because of that communication failure, they are losing some votes to Trump. As in, this isn’t a policy failure on the part of Democrats, its a correctable communication failure.
Instead of downvoting based on leaning it’d be much healthier for the community if people just downvoted based on truthfulness… granted I feel like that ship has fucking sailed but some of us do want to fight against the echo chamber.
Leave it to the neoliberals to be both somehow too hard and too soft on drugs and piss off the majority of the country.
They won’t decriminalize the harmless stuff everyone wants legalized, but also won’t crack down on stuff like the opioid epidemic.
For what it’s worth, cracking down on drugs only makes it harder for people struggling with addiction.
The war on drugs only wasted shit loads of money to fuel the prison labor industry.
The war on drugs only wasted shit loads of money to fuel the prison labor industry.
Sounds like we need to do it better.
For all the gun deaths liberals like to talk about, these newer drugs are more dangerous and are the #2 killer after COVID-19 (and now that vaccination is widespread, Fentanyl is probably #1 now).
This can very well become a Democrat / Liberal weakness if y’all let it faster. Some kind of acknowledgement or even policy to address this large scale killer of Americans is needed.
What exactly do you think the democrats are trying to do?
The GOP are pissed because they don’t get to be assholes with harm reduction and other actual solutions.
To the GOP goobers helping people, isn’t the goal.
The article points out that not a single fentanyl speaker was at the DNC.
So there currently is an appearance where it looks like Democrats don’t care.
Saying that you’re against the war on drugs in a decade where Fentanyl/ illegal drugs is the #2 killer after COVID-19 is a bad strategy that’s all I’m pointing out.
The war on drugs created the current crisis.
Being “against” a failed “solution” that was designed to incarcerate and create recidivism in a system that profited off the only legal form of slavery, is not stupid or a bad “strategy”.
Morally, ethically, and pragmatically, it’s the right call to move to an actual solution.
And there are a lot of issues that didn’t have speakers at the DNC.
Morally, ethically, and pragmatically, it’s the right call to move to an actual solution.
Cool. Name the DNC’s solution.
I promise you its not as well named as “War on Drugs”.
We don’t need catchy names. We don’t need more kids in jail.
We need progress and the GOP’s platform is anti-progress.
Who do so many people say fentan-all instead of fentan-ill?
Don’t know why you got so many down votes, other than being tangential.
But I would guess it’s because of -ol drug name familiarity like Tylenol/paracetamol and maybe some regional vowel differences. I kind of tend to say fentan-ul or fentan-le.
But fentanyl activists say Trump is at least drawing attention to the issue, whereas the Biden administration, they say, is not.
“We don’t feel seen, we don’t feel heard,” said Allen. “I’m surprised that somebody hasn’t realized or figured out that this is a huge population of people, that if we believe that you were going to respond to this and do something about it, you could very easily earn our favor.”
And I feel that guy is a dumb ass. Next question
