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.”
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.
Vance is a bigger problem, he’s a billionaire sponsored corporate entity and he’s going to end up President.
Thiel replaced Epstein on the board of Carbyne, Mossad’s research and development company.
Vance is a dubious corporate character. Beware.
This is exactly it. I keep waking up expecting to read that Trump died in his sleep, that’s how unhealthy he looks.
This is the Vance for President campaign, trump is just the fuel in the car that drives him there.
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?
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
