MSNBC Voter Panel in WI: Kamala Knew About Biden's Infirmity -- and Covered It Up

When they were created, the Olympics were only open to amateurs, a restriction dropped decades ago. Nevertheless, at least one form of discrimination still stands – you need to be a member of the species Homo sapiens to compete (equestrian events aside). With the Paris games about to open, it’s time to consider what would happen if we made the ultimate sporting contest a true event for the entire planet.One can think of all sorts of sports that could be added to an all-species festival, but for practicality, we’ll restrict discussion to those sports that will feature in Paris. A quick examination leads to the conclusion that humans have little to fear when it comes to the overall medal tally. Where Would Humans Still Win?Most sports require skills at which humans are unmatched, such as hand control. One might teach a chimpanzee or elephant to hold a badminton racquet in hand or trunk, but there is little danger they would be able to hit a shuttlecock well enough to match it with a champion – that’s even if they didn’t get bored quite quickly.Tempting as it might be to imagine the effect a gorilla would have on an opposing football team’s defense, there is also little chance any non-human species would be capable of the coordination required by Olympic team sports. It’s one thing for a group of lions or wolves to work together when hunting a specific target that also happens to be tasty, but good luck getting them to spend 90 minutes passing a ball around so one can put it in a net.Where tools are used in sports, these are specified in ways that suit only humans. For the Summer Olympics, this particularly applies to cycling, canoeing, and golf, but it includes almost everything in winter. Fortunately for us, shooting and archery are also sports where humans face little competition – we might not be the ones holding the Olympics if some of the animals we hunt with weapons could fire back.Consequently, of the 329 gold medals on offer, there are more than 200 where humans have nothing to worry about. Where Humans Would LoseIn fact, there is a very small list of sports where humans would almost certainly not emerge victorious in an all-animal competition. These include running, swimming, jumping, and weightlifting events, but even on that list, there are some exceptions.RunningThe fact that cheetahs are the fastest land animal is well-known even to children. Humans certainly don’t enter into it. It’s also been verified by science, with one specific cheetah averaging 29 meters per second (95 feet per second) over three trials of a 201-meter (660-foot) course.Many are also aware that cheetahs are limited to short distances – if they cannot catch their prey swiftly, they give up and find a different quarry. The course for the above experiment wasn't an even 200, but a cheetah in the 100- or 200-meter races would have only members of its own species to fear if it wanted the gold.Perhaps there would be difficulties in training them not to jump the starting gun without the enclosures used in greyhound racing, but if the incentives were strong enough there is probably a way.On the other hand, cheetahs would be out of the running over greater distances. At the longest Olympic running race of all, humans might even get a look in. Some anthropologists argue that prehistoric humans were persistence hunters.  We couldn’t run as fast as our prey initially, but that didn’t mean all we had in our favor were tools, the claim goes. Instead, we wore our meals down as more slow-twitch muscles allowed us to keep going. The truth of this remains debated, but there is certainly some evidence. If so, might humans win the Marathon, even if entries were open?Man Versus Horse Marathons occur annually in several places around the world, most notably in Llanwrtyd  Wells, Wales, where hundreds of humans take on dozens of horses. Horses have won the original contest most years, but it’s usually close, and a human won on foot in 2004, the race’s 25th year, as well as in 2023. (Cyclists have won on several occasions, which is less surprising). Conducted over 35 kilometers (22 miles) the Llanwrtyd race is somewhat shorter than a true marathon, but that only adds to the case that humans would win over the Olympic distance, given a horse would certainly win at shorter lengths. Then again, the horse competitors have human riders, which presumably slows them down, but also provides for more tactical thinking than a horse alone could muster.There doesn’t seem to be much evidence of whether any other species could beat both horses and humans in an Olympic marathon. After all, others do not have the benefits of thousands of years of selective breeding like horses do.There are certainly plenty of animals that could beat humans over 400 to 10,000 meters (1,312 to 32,808 feet) – although cheetahs would only be among them at the shorter end – as long as they could be trained to stick to the course. For example, zebras are reported to sustain speeds over a distance of 20 kilometers (12 miles). faster than the best human sprinter can manage over 100 meters (328 feet). No comprehensive analysis appears to be available over all distances, but judging by one study impalas might be strong contenders in middle-distance races. Gentoo penguins may not be the fastest swimmers around, but they're pretty speedy, and don't mind spending time out of water, making them the favorites in swimming contests, as long as the water isn't too warm.Image Credit: Nejron Photo/nwdph/Winsartwork/Shutterstock, modified by IFLScienceSwimmingWater is not humans’ natural element, so you’d expect us to have no chance here, but we’d still probably scoop the pool. It’s very unlikely anyone else could even qualify for a stroke as weird as the butterfly, handing those events and the medleys to humans. Frogs’ swimming motions might qualify them for the breaststroke, but we’d probably beat them over 100 meters (328 feet), even if they could stand the chlorine.Seals sometimes like to do something that looks like backstroke, however, and if their movements were deemed suitable would certainly have us beaten on that account. There are a great many fish and cetaceans that would easily outswim us at freestyle, but few would survive waiting on the blocks for the gun. On the other hand, a gentoo penguin would have no such problems and has been timed at 35 kilometers per hour (22 mph) underwater, so would probably win those events.Rock-wallabies don't have the international profile of impalas or red kangaroos, but they could be the surprise winners of the long and high jump according to a scientist who knows them.Image Credit: Maximiliane Wagner/Real Sports Photos/Shutterstock.com, modified by IFLScienceJumpingHumans would stand no chance at either the long jump or the high jump; the interest would be in watching kangaroos battle impalas. Both have been reported as capable of reaching heights of 3 meters (10 feet) and lengths of 10 meters (33 feet), and that is without any training. Both are skittish beasts, so the hard part would be to get them to do it in the right direction. When most people imagine such a contest they’d probably think of red kangaroos, the largest surviving species, as the champions of the Australian continent. However, when interviewing marsupial expert Dr David Taggart for the piece on whether a wombat could beat an Olympic sprinter, he told us otherwise. Rock-wallabies are the true jumping champions, Taggart told IFLScience, “I’ve seen a yellow-footed rock-wallaby jump 10 meters and one go 9 feet upwards.” The figures are similar to those quoted for their larger cousins, but there’s one big difference: Taggart’s observations were of jumps from a standing start – with an opportunity to get a run jump-up, the wallabies should be far ahead.ClimbingHumans gave up some of our climbing skills when we came down from the trees, so it’s not surprising more arboreal species could easily beat us to the top of a climbing course. In bouldering contests, humans would certainly be beaten – although whether the winner would be an orangutan, a mountain goat, or those leaping rock wallabies might depend on the details of the course. The Olympic sports of lead climbing and speed climbing require the use of ropes, however, which might put humans back on the podium, or at least restrict the competition to our fellow apes.WeightliftingHumans really are not that strong, which is probably one reason we developed our large brains. It’s unlikely we could win in any Olympic weight division in an all-species contest, so who would?When it comes to the open category, African bush elephants have been known to lift 9,000 kilograms (20,000 pounds), and that’s for much longer than the competition requires. That means they could carry the weights that would win a human the gold medal, and all three podium finishers in both men’s and women’s divisions all at once. Their trunk alone can carry more than any Olympian will lift, hopefully resolving questions about hold legality.Things get trickier when you’re looking at the lower-weight categories. Relative to body weight, beetles are thought to be the champion lifter, although sources vary as to whether dung beetles or rhinoceros beetles are best of all. Still, there’s no Olympic division for those weighing a few grams, and even being able to lift 1,000 times your weight won’t win any medals in a human-centered contest.Stories of chimpanzees being able to pull far greater weights than humans have been refuted, but they are considerably stronger relative to body weight than us, so it’s possible our closest relatives would win the lowest weight division for each sex. Male orangutans can reportedly lift 225 kilograms (500 pounds), which if true should see them able to win most of the middle divisions, depending on the individual’s weight class. We haven’t been able to find an original source for that, but comparisons of their muscle distribution with gorillas suggest their arms are stronger, relative to their weight, so the claim seems plausibleSubjective JudgementNot everything in the Olympics depends on objective standards like speed and strength. Diving and gymnastics are greatly influenced by the biases of the judges. Until animal representatives can award marks out of ten, humans will still be making the assessments.Therefore, it would seem likely that however well animals can perform in Artistic swimming, Diving, Breakdancing, or certain aspects of gymnastics, there’s a high chance we’d still be awarding the medal to ourselves.You Might Think So, But Probably NotKangaroos are known for their boxing prowess, to the point where a kangaroo wearing boxing gloves served as Australia’s unofficial sporting emblem in the 1980s, and is still sometimes used today. However, kangaroos do very little actual boxing with their forelegs, merely holding their prey steady while they attempt to disembowel them with their sharp hind claws. That’s a quick route to disqualification under Queensbury rules.Some human versus kangaroo fights have been staged for entertainment (of human onlookers, not the kangaroo), but besides the cruelty, these are only really contests if the kangaroo can use all its limbs. So under Olympic rules, letting kangaroos in would be wrong and pointless.Uncertain CasesHaving put together this list, there are a few sports we will admit to remaining unsure about. There are plenty of animals that are physically much stronger than us – see the weightlifting section - but how would they go in the wrestling? If a human, even a champion wrestler, were to try to take on some of these in the wild, it’s unlikely they would win. On the other hand, freestyle wrestling, and Greco-Roman even more so, ban certain holds and moves. A chimpanzee, as just one example, wouldn’t need to use these to beat a human – their muscles are at least 35 percent stronger than humans. The question is whether an ape could be sufficiently trained as to not do anything illegal – including biting or scratching – when tackled by a formidable opponent. As far as we know, no one has tested this, for fairly obvious reasons.

A mass stranding event involving a total of 146 dolphins on the Cape Cod peninsula in the northeastern United States has officially been declared the largest such event in the country’s history. According to the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), whose rescuers responded rapidly to the distressed cetaceans, 37 animals died in the event and seven more were humanely euthanized.On Friday, June 28, IFAW responded to a report of 10 Atlantic white-sided dolphins (Lagenorhynchus acutus) apparently stuck in a shallow mudflat on the shores of Wellfleet, Massachusetts. However, when the team arrived on the scene, it was immediately clear that they were dealing with many more animals than they had thought.“We arrived to what appeared to be 80 to 100 dolphins on the shallow mud flats of Wellfleet’s Herring River ‘Gut’ – a global epicenter for mass strandings,” said stranding coordinator Misty Niemeyer in a statement. In actuality, the number on that first day quickly rose to 125, the largest stranding that IFAW had seen in its 26-year history in the area.  “This rescue had many challenges due to the number of dolphins, the large size of many of the animals, how spread out they were over a large area, the difficult mud conditions, and the complicated locations from which we could reach them,” Niemeyer said. In a grueling 12-hour operation, a team of over 150 people from multiple agencies, including 100 trained volunteers, managed to herd most of the animals into safer, deeper waters.Unfortunately, 10 dolphins had already died by the time the rescuers got to the scene.The surviving dolphins were carefully herded toward deeper waters.Image credit: © IFAWThis particular region of coastline is a known risk area for dolphin strandings due to its shape and the strength of the fluctuating tides it sees. IFAW responds to around 315 strandings around Cape Cod every year.The following morning, June 29, an IFAW team located 10 of the rescued dolphins once again straying into dangerous waters, and 25 more were seen swimming in the shallows just down the coast at Eastham.Concerns continued into the next day, with a small group of animals being monitored in Wellfleet Harbor and a further stranding of around 20 dolphins in Brewster, MA. Two of them died before rescuers could reach them, but the remainder were saved and moved out to deeper waters.Overall, thanks to the efforts of the team, 70 percent of the 146 dolphins involved in the incident survived.As well as those that died of natural causes, the team had to make the decision to humanely euthanize a small number of animals. IFAW’s Deputy Vice President of Rescue Katie Moore explained why this sometimes becomes necessary: “The very social nature of these dolphins means they will stick together even in a bad situation. By removing individuals that are not well, the group may be more easily moved offshore.”Several weeks later, on July 15, the event was officially declared the largest mass dolphin stranding ever seen in the US.It’s natural to wonder how and why so many animals could get into difficulties all at the same time. One study has even suggested that, in some cases, an Alzheimer’s-like disease could be to blame, while research into whale strandings suggests that factors within the natural environment are likely to be the main cause. Toxic pollutants and solar storms are other suggestions that have been put forward.  IFAW reported on July 8 that it is “gathering data to understand what may have caused this mass stranding,” but there are no clear answers yet. Thanks to the coordinated response, tagging data showed that over 100 dolphins had returned to swimming in deeper waters at a safe distance from the shore.  The multi-day rescue operation saw hundreds of responders coming to the aid of a total of 146 dolphins.Image credit: © IFAWIf you ever come across a stranded dolphin, it’s important that you don’t try to return it to the sea yourself. Instead, call for help from the experts, like the team at IFAW, and try to keep other people and pets away from the area.

According to the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), July 22, 2024 was the hottest day since the ERA5 recording started in 1940. That day, the planet had an average temperature of 17.15°C (62.87°F), breaking the record set on July 21 of 17.09°C (62.76°F), that one only fractionally hotter than the previous record on July 6, 2023.The measurements are still preliminary, but the difference between the July 22 record and the other measurement is larger than the day-to-day variation in the dataset, so the team is confident that the record will unfortunately hold. The 10 highest annual maximum global average daily temperatures of the last 50 years have all occurred since 2015. This is the climate crisis unfolding as politicians sit on their hands instead of acting in meaningful ways to tackle it.Curves showing the daily global average temperature from 1940 to today really show how badly things are going...Data source: ERA5. Image credit: C3S/ECMWF"On July 21st, C3S recorded a new record for the daily global mean temperature. What is truly staggering is how large the difference is between the temperature of the last 13 months and the previous temperature records. We are now in truly uncharted territory and as the climate keeps warming, we are bound to see new records being broken in future months and years," C3S Director Carlo Buontempo said in a statement on July 23, before the July 22 measurement was available.Following the new record on July 22, Buontempo added: “We now have a new record, and its value is sufficiently large to indicate with some confidence that this has exceeded the record set only last year. The event is still ongoing and it is possible the date of the peak may still change, but our data suggest we may see slightly lower temperatures in the next few days".Global average temperature reaches its annual peak between late June and early August, matching the summer in the Northern Hemisphere. This is due to the difference in heat capacity between the landmasses and the ocean. There are more landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere so that drives the general shape of global average daily temperatures throughout the year. Since 1940, there has been an upward trend in temperatures, year-on-year. This is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.C3S states that is too early to tell if 2024 will beat last year as the hottest year on record, but it has an extremely good chance of doing so. Still, the warm final months of 2023 make this difficult to predict.

In an effort to tackle its titanic trash problem, Grand Canyon National Park has set out a plan for its South Rim site to become the first in a US national park to use almost entirely reusable foodware.It’s no surprise that so many people want to visit national parks – they’re home to geological wonders, traces of our ancient ancestors, and some of our favorite animals. The trouble is, with a lot of people usually comes a lot of trash – nearly 70 million tons of it, in fact. According to a report produced by non-profit the 5 Gyres Institute, 81 percent of that waste is plastic.While some waste is brought along and left by tourists themselves, plenty of rubbish is also generated by park food vendors. At Grand Canyon, concessioners give out around eight single-use foodware items with every transaction – that racks up to over 7.2 million in a year.It’s easier said than done to manage all of that waste, so the National Park Service (NPS) and National Park Foundation (NPF) put out a call for help: come up with an innovative way to reduce, reuse, and recycle the plastic used, and they’ll give you $400,000 to bring it to life.The winner of that grant was a collaboration between reuse movement agency Upstream Solutions and two park vendors, Delaware North and Xanterra Travel Collection. Together, they’re aiming to consult with fellow vendors, the park and its conservancy, and the local community to figure out the best way to put their plan into action.It’s hoped the result of that will be a system where reusable – and, importantly for a site with a big demand for food and drink, durable – foodware is collected, cleaned, and continues to be used.“NPF is thrilled to support the first reuse program of this scale in a national park gateway community through Upstream,” said Ashley McEvoy, Director of Resilience and Sustainability at the NPF, in a statement. “This program will help support the Secretary’s goals to phase out single-use plastics on all DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior) managed lands.”There’s also plenty that visitors can do to reduce the waste generated at national parks. The “Don’t Feed the Landfills” initiative, first launched in 2015 at the Denali, Grand Teton, and Yosemite National Park, gives five main pointers on how to do so:Plan and Prepare – think about what you’re bringing with you – is it reusable? If not, does the park have places you can recycle or compost it?Opt for Online when you can – where possible, switch to smartphones instead of paper maps, tickets, etc.Bring Your Own Coffee Mug – this one is pretty self-explanatory, but if you forget, plenty of parks sell their own reusable mugs.Bring Your Own Water Bottle – ideally a reusable one, and use refill stations.Choose Reusable Bags – bought some merch? Bring a reusable bag to pop your purchases in.

CNBC host Jim Cramer lavished praise on Vice President Kamala Harris, leaving his ideas on who she could be entirely unburdened by who she has been.  On the June 22 edition of Squawk on the Street, Cramer lauded Harris as a “globalist” and more sophisticated than President Joe Biden. When CNBC co-anchor Carl Quintanilla tried to characterize Cramer’s remarks, Cramer agreed with his characterization that Harris’ ascent was a “net positive for the markets and for American business.” During the segment, Cramer astonishingly went on to indirectly boost Harris on energy policy, arguing, “Republicans are uniquely bad for oil.” Cramer argued that the GOP drove down the price of oil by allowing excessive drilling. However, this claim completely ignored that the Biden administration aims to eliminate American oil and gas production by pushing net-zero goals. The stupidity didn’t end there. In an obvious sign that he didn’t watch a single 2020 presidential primary debate, Cramer also said that Harris was “much more moderate” than Biden.  Harris’ record shreds any illusion that she is a strong supporter of oil and gas production. The New York Times praised her environmental record in a June 22 article. The article covered her staunch opposition to fracking, a method of natural gas extraction that has helped make the nation energy-independent.  The Times article also mentioned her support for making energy more expensive through a carbon tax. The article also noted that she was an original sponsor of the radical and wasteful “Green New Deal” and took action to try to stop offshore fracking as California’s attorney general.   Harris isn’t pro-business either, her record shows. During the 2020 presidential primaries, Harris supported reversing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and massively increasing the corporate income tax from 21% to 35%. She also backed taxing stock market trades to help pay for her expensive, government spending wish list. Only minutes after Cramer had finished bloviating on an imaginary pro-business and pro-energy Harris, CNBC Senior Washington Correspondent Eamon Javers shredded this argument. Javers correctly pointed out that Harris had supported the Green New Deal, a plan to replace oil and gas.  He also noted that the supposedly pro-business Harris supported a 35% corporate tax rate. Biden, who Cramer favorably compared Harris to, supported a 28% corporate tax rate. It’s unclear what Cramer is excited about as both these rates are higher than the current rate.  Conservatives are under attack! Contact CNBC at cnbcnewspr@nbcuni.com and demand it distance itself from Cramer’s wild predictions.

ABC’s Good Morning America felt warm and fuzzy inside on Thursday in reacting to President Biden’s Wednesday night Oval Office address about his decision to end his bid for reelection, calling the “historic address” a “love letter to the country he has devoted his life to” and one “for the history books...that not only will preserve his legacy, but now define it.” Even the teases were syrupy. Co-host Robin Roberts boasted of Biden’s “historic address to the nation, passing the torch” to cap “more than half a century in politics” and then co-host and former Clinton flack George Stephanopoulos huffed that Donald Trump spent Wednesday night “repeatedly mispronounicing the Vice President’s name” at a rally.     Chief White House correspondent and lead Biden apple polisher Mary Bruce was in top form, calling it “truly...an address for the history books” with Biden “explaining to the American people...his remarkable decision to pass that torch” (which he did not, in fact, do). “It is a move that not only will preserve his legacy, but now define it...Overnight, in the Oval Office, President Biden explaining directly to the American people his historic decision to bow out of the race, describing it as a patriotic necessity to preserve the country he loves so dearly,” she excitedly proclaimed. Only later after giving Biden long soundbites did Bruce concede he “did make no mention, though, of how he got to this moment”, but wants to “make clear he still has a lot of work he wants to get done”. In the second hour, Bruce reracked a lot of her lunacy, but added this humdinger: “Well, this address from the President last night did feel like Joe Biden’s love letter to the country that he has devoted his life to serving.” She also deployed this rhetorical wet kiss on ABC’s Special Report Wednesday night: This moment from ABC's post-Biden coverage was thrill-up-the-leg stupid. David Muir: “[I]n the end, President Biden believes that what is at stake here is actually larger than any title, larger than even staying in the race himself.” Mary Bruce: “David, the President saying he… pic.twitter.com/redYoXAEdl — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) July 25, 2024 To their credit, Stephanopoulos and chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl tempered things with the reality that Biden never explicitly outlined why he dropped out and he’ll only be truly heralded as having done the right thing if Harris wins. Pivoting to Trump, Stephanopoulos tossed to congressional correspondent Rachel Scott by lamenting “Trump ramped up his attacks on Kamala Harris at his first campaign rally”, which Scott concurred with by complaining “Trump repeatedly mispronounc[ed] Harris’s name”. The liberal media can hurl invectives at Trump and argue he’s Hitler, but even mild criticism of Democrats like Harris are seen like Scott saw his ripping of Harris: Less than a week ago, Trump called for unity during the Republican National Convention, saying he wanted to be a President for all Americans after surviving an attempted assassination. But, back on the trail, he returned to insults and false claims about the 2020 election....On Capitol Hill, some Republicans taking aim at her identity, naming her a diversity hire or DEI for diversity, equity, inclusion...Sources tell ABC News Speaker Johnson has privately warned Republicans to stop, urging members to focus on her record instead. Later, Karl lamented what he saw Wednesday in Trump’s rally was “Donald Trump from 2016” in which “the notion of any sense of unity” was gone and his 2024 campaign would be about “running very enthusiastically to be the president of half of America”, not “all of America”. Touching again on ABC’s Wednesday night coverage, Scott also fawned over what Biden stepping aside means for young, black girls and, at the end of their hour-long show, political director Rick Klein shared what it was like to watch the speech from the Oval Office (click “expand”): SCOTT: Tonight, President Biden is that bridge to the next generation. He said tonight that it was time to pass the torch. He called it the best way to unite the nation. The President put it bluntly. He said that’s a time and a place for long careers and decades in politics and that there’s a time for fresh voices, fresh faces. And he said that time and place is right now. You know, David, as the President was speaking, I thought back to how President Biden once introduced Kamala Harris to the nation, saying that he was thinking about all the brown and black little girls out there were seeing a black and south Asian woman in a new way, a way they have not ever seen before. Tonight, Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic nominee, becomes the first black and south Asian woman on a major party ticket, David. (....) MUIR: Rick, as you know, the networks cover the White House — I’m just explaining for folks at home — there’s always one network that’s the pool — the pool network for these big moments. Tonight, ABC was the pool, which put you right in the room, right in the oval office, a witness to history tonight. What did you make of it? KLEIN: Yeah, David, it was remarkably emotional and intimate. The Oval Office is not a big place. There were about 40 people in there, maybe about 10 or 12 members of the Biden family watching intently. To see the president’s daughter, Ashley Biden, watching with her eyes closed, grabbing her mother’s hand at one point. Jill Biden, Hunter Biden, the grandchildren, all watching intently and watching as they took in the gravity of the moment. And, when the President wrapped up his remarks, they broke into spontaneous applause. Many of hi own aides in the room just felt overcome by that moment. And the President stood next to his wife who came over to him next to the Resolute Desk and said, this was the honor of a lifetime. MUIR: Rick Klein, our Washington bureau chief, in the oval office tonight. Rick, extraordinary to have witnessed that. To see the relevant transcripts, click here (for July 25’s Special Report) and here (for Good Morning America).

You say to-MAY-to and I say to-MAH-to. You say KAM-a-la, and Trump says Ka-MA-la. Let's call the whole thing off!  CNN This Morning devoted an entire segment to their outrage over Trump's allegedly gleeful mispronunciation of Harris's first name, going so far as to prepare a mash-up of several times Trump did it yesterday. Host Kasie Hunt literally turned to a Karen to complain. CNN analyst and former Hillary Clinton aide Karen Finney objected to "the intentionality with which, and almost the glee on his face, when he mispronounces her name." Jonah Goldberg wasn't so sure Trump's mispronunciation was intentional, but he agreed with Finney that it was an attempt to "other" her.   GOLDBERG: He's certainly looking to other her and do all sorts of terrible things to her.  And I don't dispute that for a second.But, like, he mispronounced Buttigieg, his name, all the time too. And people just sometimes get hooked up on this. So I just don't know if -- it could be deliberate. It also might not be.  Really? How is Ka-MA-la any more foreign that KA-ma-la? Neither is exactly Mary Jane. The controversy echoes the pro-Democrat media objecting in 2008 to opponents saying "Barack Hussein Obama." But a country that twice elected Obama is not overly concerned with nomenclature! Hunt ended the segment by claiming that by his pronunciation of Kamala, Trump was trying to "torque" all the reasons "why it has been difficult for women and people of color to get elected in this country." She's not always this ethnically hypersensitive. This the same CNN host who giggled when Chris Christie mocked Team Trump as "Corleones without experience." They did not spend time assessing Kamala Harris campaigning against Trump: “Predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, and cheaters who broke the rules for their gain. So hear me when I say -- I know Donald Trump’s type.” Isn't "predator" and "fraudster" harsher than "Ka-MA-la"?  Here's the transcript. CNN This Morning 7/25/24 6:17 am EDT DONALD TRUMP: If Kamala will lie to you so brazenly about Joe Biden's mental incapacity, then she will lie to you about anything. She can never, ever be trusted. She can't be trusted. And just like Crooked Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is unfit to lead. And a vote for Kamala is a vote for four more years of dishonesty, incompetence, weakness, and failure. Other than that, she's doing an excellent job. KASIE HUNT: All right. Our panel is back. Karen, you got something to say there? KAREN FINNEY: You know, the intentionality with which, and almost the glee on his face, when he mispronounces his, her name. HUNT: Let me show, we got a mash-up of all the times he does this. Let's watch this because, and I want to Karen pick up out of this too, because it's intentional. And it does matter, I think. Watch. TRUMP: If Kamala Harris gets in . . . Lyin Kamala Harris . . .  Kamala Harris is the most liberal elected politician in American history . . . Kamala threw open our borders . . . Lyin' Kamala Harris. Lyin . . . Kamala! You're fired! Get outta here. You're fired. HUNT: That was all yesterday. And again, it's KA-ma-la. It's not hard, right?  FINNEY: It's easy. Comma. La. That's all you gotta do. Yeah. Look, it's so intentional. It's so obvious. It's othering. It's trying to make her seem like she's some bizarre, not one of us. It's, you know, it's also demeaning, right? Because one of the most basic forms of respect is to pronounce somebody's name or to say, how do you pronounce your name?  And look, I mean, for African-Americans, there's a whole history of, we didn't get to choose our names for a very long time. But most importantly, it's just such a sign of disrespect. And it's such an obvious, intentional way to try to belittle her and demean her on the national stage. As to your point, they're trying to define her as someone who's insignificant. HUNT: Jonah, I'm intrigued by the look on your face.  JONAH GOLDBERG: Look, as someone who mispronounces words all the time. I think that there are people who, in good faith, just mispronounce her name. I think Trump is a grumpy old 78-year-old guy. It might be deliberate. He's certainly looking to other her and do all sorts of terrible things to her.  And I don't dispute that for a second. But, like, he mispronounced Buttigieg, his name, all the time too. And people just sometimes get hooked up on this. So I just don't know if -- it could be deliberate. It also might not be.  I just, I think this is the kind of thing that plays really well among people who were already going to vote for Harris [Finney nods in agreement], and making --  there's so many richer targets to point at about what they're going to say and do towards Harris that will play with persuadables in the middle. I'm not sure, like, the on-the-bubble suburban voter is like, okay, now I'm going to vote for her because Trump's mispronouncing her name. HUNT: Right, I think that the point is, though, is, is, instead to underscore to people who have, you know, all the reasons why it has been difficult for women and people of color to get elected in this country. He's trying to torque that tendency, right? GOLDBERG: Sure.

This homemade version of Honey Mustard Sauce is super easy to make and wonderful on salads or as a dip for chicken tenders! You may also love this delicious Homemade Vanilla Sauce! It’s wonderful on bread pudding, ice cream, waffles, etc. ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE This Honey Mustard Sauce recipe is so easy and...