Kamala Harris had a terse reply to Trump’s plan: “No.”
Donald Trump said Thursday that vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would be in charge of “women’s health” if the former president is reelected to the White House.
…
The comments reflect Kennedy’s growing role in a potential administration and his rising standing in the Trump orbit after he dropped his independent bid for the presidency and endorsed his onetime competitor. But calls for a senior position have troubled health advocates, who point to Kennedy’s long history as a skeptic of widely accepted science surrounding vaccines. Those concerns grew this week after the co-chair of the team planning Trump’s potential transition said Kennedy had persuaded him in a 2.5-hour meeting that vaccines caused autism, a widely debunked stance.
The Harris campaign was quick to share footage of Trump’s plans for Kennedy on Thursday, and Harris herself tweeted a short response to her opponent’s pledge: “No.”
You’re not as stupid as to support the subject of that headline, Reader. Vote for Harris.
Is there currently someone “in charge of women’s health” in our government? This sounds ominous af.
Edit: Turns out there is a Office of Women’s Health in the FDA that is focused on addressing unique biology I guess. That seems to make it even worse.
Looks like donnie is really doubling down on hoping the male vote puts him over because this is the exact opposite of outreach to women voters…
I’m not sure RFK, Jr should be in charge of his own health.
What do you mean? He’s a very healthy looking zombie.
deleted by creator
How is it not a conspiracy that he’s trying to lose this election. And how are his dumb ass supporters, who are often so high on conspiracy theory, oblivious to this notion? And why the fuck is the media making it out to be hyper competitive with both sides bringing equal amounts of crazy and reason to the table
Also as a non-American, I don’t get how this is even a close election? To me it seems like the options are Competent Politician Who You May Not Agree With On Everything vs. Actual Cabal Of Demented Fascists, and it seems like it could genuinely go either way.
And why the fuck is the media making it out to be hyper competitive with both sides bringing equal amounts of crazy and reason to the table
The bothsiderist formula is what the corporate media loves best. Doing truth-telling is not really their thing.
The man with literal worm-on-the-brain is going to be in charge of women’s bodies. I mean, of course! This timeline is really turning out to be worse than any “alternate universe” episodes of most sci-fi shows.
A dead worm. Poor thing starved to death 😢
MAGA just really does not give a crap about women’s health.
Or anyone, at all. They care about their own power, wealth, and status, nothing and no one else.
Being maga means just being a Karen. That’s all it really is.
It is far more than that.
Oh, they do. They care because they want women to suffer.
It makes sense when you realize they take “women’s health” to mean literally one thing only: access to abortions.
Try to stay with me here because I have this crazy idea. It’s out there. So far out there I’m pretty sure it’s never been done. How about we have a woman with medical training in charge of women’s health?
The training makes her an expert and you can’t trust those. Can’t trust a woman either, so that’s double untrustworthy.
Oh right. Vance’s debate argument that you can’t go with what economists say about the economy.
Be careful what you wish for, or they will find the one woman trained in medicine who wants to sterilize people using logic derived from eugenics.
There’s one here in Houston who believes in all kinds of crazy shit. Look up Stella Immanuel.
Great idea. Also, only gay people get to vote on gay rights.
Not joking.
A list of possible new Republican slogans for Women’s rights and women’s health:
“It all starts out by grabbing the pussy real good”
“If by the pussy you don’t succeed, try and try again”
“If you’re famous, they let you health care them by the pussy”
Ngl it’s kind of a hilarious and baffling self-own with regards to the women’s vote. Like, genuinely, how is this in any way supposed to convince more women to vote for him? An antivax nut job with a literal worm in his brain…? Like… wut.
Is he an HPV vaccine skeptic too? Because that wouldn’t bode well for the rates of cervical cancer.
Republicans are talking about banning all vaccines, which is obviously insane and murderous.
He’s an everything vaccine skeptic. He’s said that he tells random women in the park not to vaccinate their kids.
Picture him dragging a bear corpse and telling passerbys not to vaccinate.
Thanks for the info. What a shithead
A clip from RFK Jr.'s recent interview about his plans for women’s health
Trump really has a talent for picking the absolute worst possible people for any position.
Imagine Ernest giving you health advice and making health guidelines. That’s what this is.
I would trust Ernest P Worrell with my life. I wouldn’t trust RFK to tie my shoe.
Have you seen Ernest’s house? Dude just has savant syndrome. He’s a genius engineer and doesn’t know it.
Is this the lobster that Jordan Peterson is famous for?
HuffPost - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for HuffPost:
Wiki: reliable - A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost’s reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: mixed - In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers’ reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: unreliable - Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a “Contributor” (also referred to as an “Editorial Partner”). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
HuffPost - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for HuffPost:
Wiki: reliable - A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost’s reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: mixed - In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers’ reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: unreliable - Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a “Contributor” (also referred to as an “Editorial Partner”). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
HuffPost - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for HuffPost:
Wiki: reliable - A 2020 RfC found HuffPost staff writers fairly reliable for factual reporting on non-political topics, but notes that they may give prominence to topics that support their political bias and less prominence to, or omit, things that contradict it. HuffPost’s reliability has increased since 2012; articles before 2012 are less reliable and should be treated with more caution. HuffPost uses clickbait headlines to attract attention to its articles, thus the body text of any HuffPost article is considered more reliable than its headline. See also: HuffPost (politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: mixed - In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers’ reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics. See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost contributors.
Wiki: unreliable - Until 2018, the U.S. edition of HuffPost published content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a “Contributor” (also referred to as an “Editorial Partner”). See also: HuffPost (excluding politics), HuffPost (politics).
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Vox:
Wiki: reliable - Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox does not always delineate reporting and opinion content or that it is a partisan source in the field of politics. See also: Polygon, The Verge, New York
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.vox.com/politics/381470/trump-rfk-cabinet-hhs-vaccines-health
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-rfk-jr-vaccines-womens-health_n_67246816e4b0871068febd91
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rfk-jr-redefines-what-maga-really-means_n_66cb52bee4b077694c46be85
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/howard-lutnick-trump-vaccines_n_67237fe0e4b02f5ab1d287fe
