this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
422 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4191 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 autisma 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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

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?

[–] webadict 20 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TexasDrunk 8 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

There's one here in Houston who believes in all kinds of crazy shit. Look up Stella Immanuel.

[–] barsquid 3 points 4 weeks ago

Dr. Demon Semen! Yeah, she's perfect for a Donald appointee.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago

Great idea. Also, only gay people get to vote on gay rights.

Not joking.

[–] the_tab_key 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The training makes her an expert and you can't trust those. Can't trust a woman either, so that's double untrustworthy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

Oh right. Vance’s debate argument that you can’t go with what economists say about the economy.