You know what would "debunk" this? If we could find anyone at CNN defending or praising Trump or his polices.
If instead of seeing articles like "X is good, Trump did X, X is bad now", we saw articles like "X is bad, Trump did X, X is good now".
These examples all have the TIMELINE in common. Things shift from good to bad, or unacceptable to criticize to acceptable to criticize when Trump does them.
I'm going to stop you right there because you've just demonstrated that - once again - you didn't read beyond the headline and didn't think beyond what your echo chamber told you to think. We can set aside the health question as an idiotic attempt at a gotcha on the part of your 'collage', utterly reliant on the idea that people like yourself will take it at the word of its insinuation and won't actually look into its claims. It tries to allege hypocrisy because one journalist was prompted to ask how much emphasis we should put on a candidate's health because Trump's cult jumping on Clinton having pneumonia to exaggerate and propagandize her illness as making her necessarily unfit for office. The article notes that there are a few obvious things that would be important in forming an informed opinion (notably terminal or mental illness) but, short of that, candidates have a right to medical privacy (which historically most candidates have been quite content to keep). And to allege hypocrisy, your collage contrasts this with a "What we know about Donald Trump's health" article written by a different journalist. Moreover, the journalist who released the latter article had literally released a "
What we know about Hillary Clinton's health" the day before. So the characterization of "they changed their tune when it was time to talk about Trump" is bullshit for more than a few reasons.
But let's look at the big issue you're trying to paint as hypocrisy. You know, "Everyone should have a shot at paid family leave" vs. "Trump's budget to include paid family leave,
but may face trouble in Congress"? Setting aside for a minute that - despite the implication of your collage - the latter doesn't actually make anything remotely approaching a value judgement for or against the proposal, it also notes that the Congressional opposition in question is attributable to congressional Republicans who had historically been vocally opposed to such action. The third article ("How paid family leave hurts women"), is also very much not the "this is bad" turnaround you're trying to suggest, instead saying that it's a wonderful thought but it's necessarily an incomplete one, one step in the process rather than a full solution, and that risks backfiring if treated as a full solution that can fix the problem on its own. It then proceeds to spend the much of the rest of the article suggesting what the additional steps might be, including some legislation that was then on the table.
Moreover, none of this comes even close to a contradiction. The "everyone should have paid family leave" article centers on the lack of support for it (13% of private sector) and inconsistency even within the same company. As an example of this it cites Starbucks, which gives 18 weeks paid time off for new mothers in corporate and 12 weeks for new fathers in corporate, but only 6 weeks for barista mothers and none for barista fathers, and saying that in the end having a greater family support ends up being an economic net boon. Again, the second article doesn't make any value judgements, and the third is fundamentally a plea to keep moving forward rather than assume that paid parental leave is 'mission accomplished'.
Perhaps you should try actually reading and applying some actual research instead of simply taking the claims of your echo chamber as gospel.