Ossoff has recently moved into my #1 slot. I’ve been watching shorts from his Senate campaign and he is an incredible candidate. Swagger, presence, great messaging. He’s in with the Black community, he’s won in a purple state and he isn’t afraid to go after MAGA. He just reminds me of a young Obama. Doesn’t hurt that he’s a millennial who’s also easy on the eyes.
My current wish list:
Every Single President in the last 100 years have been multimillionaires. Maybe being a Billionaire is out.
Nothing wrong with being Pro-Israel- normally. With the Gaza crisis that has changed somewhat, but that may be off the front page in 2 years.
There is nothing wrong with being associated with the Biden years. Biden was a good solid president.
Yeah, it may have held Harris back a bit last time, but by 2028 the Biden years will be well remembered.
Too soon to say.
If we get double-digit inflation next year, or a 50 percent stock correction, sure. Eventually, both will happen, and it will have something to do with Donald Trump, but there’s no predicting when it will happen.
whatever happens during the Trump v.2, the Biden years were lightyears better.
The accuracy of that story has long been questioned, but it may have happened. On the other hand, consider Abigail Adams’s description of Washington: “He is polite with dignity, affable without familiarity, distant without haughtiness, grave without austerity, modest, wise, and good.”
As President Washington is not eligible to be nominated for a third term in 2028, perhaps this discussion belongs in another thread?
The 22nd amendment specifically did not apply to Truman or any prior presidents, so the third term isn’t a problem, but he might be considered unable to perform his duties by the 25th amendment.
Hey, he’s more competent than Trump is.
I’d vote for Washington’s janked up slave teeth resting in a pile of hot Virginia cow shit over anything coming out of the GOP these days.
Thanks for the laugh — we needed that.
Josh Shapiro was on MSNOW yesterday (their programming was almost as political as it is every day … they spent very little time on parades and fireworks) talking to Jen Psaki. He was the first politician to raise the subject that I dearly want to hear: what constitutional amendments do we need to recover from Trumpism. And he finished with “…and I will do everything I can to support this” which came this close to announcing his candidacy.
What amendments did he suggest?
“Anti-corruption”. I wish I’d recorded it so I could provide more details. It just made me prick up my ears because it’s the first time I’d heard “constitutional amendments” in any public discourse.
None of which can pass.
I don’t see 37 states passing anything, even if it would limit Democratic politicians as much as Republican ones.
Brian
Good point.
Does forcing folk to go on record supporting the ability of the Executive to pilfer profusely still accomplish something? Or does it get mocked as performative?
I don’t think this would be performative the way impeachment ended up being, because we’ve never actually run the Article V process on an anti‑graft amendment. Impeachment had already been politically routinized; a constitutional amendment hasn’t.
And it only works if the amendment is written broadly. Trump’s alleged graft has been concentrated in crypto, but if you write an amendment that only targets crypto, it looks like a one‑off aimed at a single person. A general anti‑self‑dealing amendment that applies to any president forces a real institutional test instead of a symbolic gesture.
Republicans have spent years attacking Hunter Biden over alleged graft. Fine — take them at their word. A broad anti‑graft amendment gives them a chance to prove they actually oppose presidential self‑dealing in principle.
Running it through the congressional route (2/3 in both chambers) and then through the state‑ratification route would put everyone on record about whether they support limiting presidential graft. That’s not performative — that’s creating a durable public record of who is genuinely willing to restrict executive self‑enrichment.
How would such an amendment be any different from the emoluments clause that we already have and which the Republicans are already ignoring?