Latest news with #Editors
CNN
6 days ago
- General
- CNN
The 5 best Kindle cases, chosen by our book-obsessed editors
Looking for the best Kindle cases can feel as tricky as selecting the one truly perfect page-turner to pack for a vacation (a problem that's in the past when your Kindle holds so many e-books). Not every case is a winner, and you can often have trouble trying to get a sense of how they actually feel — or if they have the right cutouts for your ports and buttons — from just looking at them online. But as one of our editors learned firsthand, it's a very good idea to protect your Amazon Kindle with a case to keep it alive. Finding the right Kindle cases and covers for multiple models wasn't exactly difficult, though. Our book-loving staff have been using Amazon's e-readers for years and have lost count of all the cases we've tried along the way. So, when we huddled as a team to share our picks, we came to a consensus pretty quickly, having actually lived with these cases for multiple months, if not years. Our cases are mostly for the best Kindles we've recently tested, including the 11th- and 12th-generation Kindle Paperwhites. Cases for the latter model also cover the new Kindle Colorsoft, which has the same physical specs. We've also got a case for the new 6-inch Kindle, and it comes strongly recommended by the most voracious reader I know. We've yet to find a good case for the Kindle Scribe, though, so check back with us later for more about that one. Here are the five best Kindle cases we've actually used and tested. CoBak 7-Inch Kindle Paperwhite Stand Case With Hand Strap Copy editor Danielle Poiesz raved about how this case is basically everything you could want, saying, 'The strap is handy, it's cute, it's affordable and I can prop it up if I want to read while I eat a piece of cake and drink a glass of wine.' Clearly, this is the Kindle case for the reader who has it all. I got one of these in to check out for myself, and in addition to its sturdy build quality and pleasing texture, I have to shout out the hidden hand-strap in the back cover that enables one-handed reading. This case is on the thicker side, but it's not too 7-Inch Kindle Paperwhite and Colorsoft Sleeve Case Associate editor Jillian Tracy is the sole team member who defended a sleeve-style case. Tracy explained that she's often 'chucking [her] Kindle in a stuffed backpack or tote bag, and this magnetic case helps keep [her] Kindle from ending up scratched, sand-filled or spilled on.' As for its look, 'it's nothing fancy, but it gets the job done,' she said. Since this is a pouch-style case, it doesn't just fit the 7-inch Paperwhite and Colorsoft; it also fits the 6.8-inch Paperwhite from 6.8-Inch Kindle Paperwhite Case Digital content strategist Madison Yerke praised this 6.8-inch case for helping her previous-generation Kindle stay strong. "I have had this one for a few years and love it! It hasn't shown any signs of wear and has protected my screen from the numerous falls from my bed and liquid spills,' said Yerke, before dropping that sweating smiley emoji. 'It's pretty lightweight and doesn't feel like I have a bulky case on it.'Strapsicle 6.8-Inch Kindle Paperwhite Clear Case CNN Underscored editorial director Chelsea Stone told me this case's allure is about more than just its protective shell. She says that while it is 'a perfectly fine basic clear case for your Kindle, the real reason to buy it is that it comes with 40 fun reading-themed stickers to decorate the back with.' Those decorations are what we in the business refer to as a delightful bonus. Oh, and those looking for a one-handed reading experience should also consider this model because its thin design means you don't have much added weight. CoBak 6-Inch Kindle Case While our other Kindle case recommendations come from our staff, this CoBak case is my mom's own Kindle case, which I gave her for her birthday last year. Seven months after I gave it to her, I asked her if she liked it, and she answered instantly with a resounding 'yes!' That's enough for me to call it in for testing, and I was pretty pleased with how this 6-inch budget case protects my own Kindle 2024, Amazon's latest entry-level e-reader. Not only does it fit that Kindle perfectly but its magnetic cover supports the automatic wake and sleep functionality, so you won't waste any battery life. One small caveat is that its matte polyurethane leather cover material feels a little tacky (though that material is waterproof). I'm happy to note you barely touch that part when you're actually reading, and you feel the case's microfiber interior far more often. Which model do you have? First off, you're going to need to figure out which Kindle you're trying to protect. Open the Settings menu and select Device Info to find the name of your specific model, such as 'Kindle Paperwhite (10th Generation).' Now, make sure you look for that model number or a shortening of it, such as 'Paperwhite 10th Gen,' when you're browsing Kindle cases. No matter which model you have, look for a case with magnets that help it stay shut; it's especially important when traveling. How do you use your e-reader? If you like to go hands-free, like Stone does with her beloved cozy Kindle Bluetooth page turner, you'll want to look for a case that enables that sort of experience. The CoBak Stand Case, for example, includes a built-in kickstand you can pop out of its front cover to prop it up on a table. If you have a grip for your Kindle, though, then you're probably best off with Strapsicle's clear case or its strap holders, because they're a bit lighter and easier to clip the Bluetooth page turner on. How do you care for your tech? Kindle cases provide varying levels of protection, ranging from the Strapsicle strap cases that cover just the edges of your Kindle and to the CoBak Stand Case that gets you a whole folio-style case. I'd recommend the latter if you're buying for someone that's a bit more reckless. While the Paperwhite is already water-resistant, the Strapsicle and MoKo cases and the 6-inch CoBak cover also use waterproof materials. Do all Kindles need a case? Do all Kindles need a case? All Kindles could use a case, but the question of the need for a Kindle case depends on how you treat your Kindle. Some people I know, including one person I work with, tend to put a fair amount of wear and tear on their Kindle and could use the protection. I tend to be a bit more careful with my tech and have yet to really need one. Are there any Kindle cases that fit all Kindles? Are there any Kindle cases that fit all Kindles? Not if you're talking about a rigid, form-fitting case. Most Kindle models vary in their dimensions and that includes button placement. However, you may find a case for all Kindles if you look through the Kindle pouches and sleeves designed for the 12th-generation Kindle Paperwhite, one of the largest Kindles yet. However, those still won't fit the super-sized Kindle Scribe, Amazon's Kindle for writers. What is the best way to remove a Kindle from its case? What is the best way to remove a Kindle from its case? I apply pressure to the back of one of the top corners while holding on to the front and back on the bottom of the case. For this article, we consulted the following readers on the CNN staff. Danielle Poiesz, copy editor at CNN Underscored Chelsea Stone, editorial director at CNN Underscored Jillian Tracy, associate editor at CNN Underscored Madison Yerke, digital content strategist at CNN Underscored The CNN Underscored team applies even more tenacity to product reviews than it does to reading, which is saying something when we're in the middle of a competitive summer reading challenge at the moment. CNN Underscored has a team of skilled writers and editors who have many years of experience testing, researching and recommending products, and we ensure each article is carefully edited and products are properly vetted. We talk to top experts when applicable to make certain we are testing each product accurately, recommending only the best products after considering the pros and cons of each item. This guide's writer Henry T. Casey has been reviewing gadgets for more than a decade and has been testing Kindles and the latest tablets for more than five years.
Scottish Sun
16-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Scottish Sun
Huge award-winning producer reveals she's battling cancer after years of ‘debilitating pain' as she shares hospital snap
The music star said a fibroid the size of her uterus was discovered SHOCK DIAGNOSIS Huge award-winning producer reveals she's battling cancer after years of 'debilitating pain' as she shares hospital snap Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) AN award-winning music producer has announced a devastating cancer diagnosis after three years of living with "debilitating pain". Catherine Marks took to Instagram today to share her news with fans, posting a picture of herself in a hospital bed. Sign up for the Entertainment newsletter Sign up 1 Catherine Marks has shared her cancer diagnosis Credit: Instagram She wrote: "This isn't an easy one to share, but after speaking with so many other women, and the doctors along this journey, I've realised how important it is to talk openly; especially about the things we're often taught to endure in silence." Catherine said she dismissed her initial back pain as a herniated disc or part of the ageing process. But she sensed there was more to it and further tests revealed she had a fibroid the size of "my uterus". She continued: "What followed were 18 exhausting months: intense pain, excessive blood loss, tests, operations, transfusions and just enough energy to get through work…barely anything else. "Eventually, last December, doctors found early stage cancer and as a result I recently underwent a full abdominal hysterectomy. Recovery will be slow but steady, and I'm deeply grateful to the brilliant oncology and gynae team at Queen Charlotte and all the incredible NHS nurses and doctors who have taken care of me. "This journey has taught me something vital: trust your instincts. As women, we often downplay our pain or dismiss our needs. But listening to your body and advocating for yourself can be life-saving." Catherine said she's been reflecting on what could have been and is now looking at healing and rebuilding her life. She signed off: "I look forward to returning with energy, creativity, and a deeper understanding of what matters most. "What comes next feels precious." The well-wishes came from friends and followers with Clara Amfo writing: "Salute for trusting yourself above everything, sending so much love x." Nadine Coyle shared: "Sending so much love to you!!!" A fan said: "Oh my god. Sorry you have been going through this in silence. Love you Catherine. take time to heal so we can get back to being our best bogans." Catherine's music career began under the tutelage of Grammy-winning producer Flood and they worked together on PJ Harvey and Editors records in the early noughties. She's since gone on to win a raft of awards including the 2016 Music Producers Guild Award for Breakthrough Producer of The Year, the 2018 MPG Producer of the Year, and 2023 Producer of the Year at the A&R Awards.
The Guardian
11-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Edith Bowman and her mother look back: ‘My Scottish accent got me professional knockbacks, but I'm so glad I didn't have elocution lessons'
Born in Fife in 1974, broadcaster Edith Bowman started her radio career while doing communication studies at Queen Margaret University College in Edinburgh. Her first on-screen job was as a news presenter for MTV UK in the early 00s. Top of the Pops, royal wedding coverage, the Baftas and shows on BBC Radio 1, Radio 2 and 6 Music followed. Soundtracking, the film and music podcast she launched in 2016, is available on all providers. She is married to Tom Smith of the band Editors, has two children and lives in Gloucestershire. This picture was taken at Circus World in Florida. We got to choose our makeup, costumes and accessories separately, but turned up dressed the same. It's very apt that I'm a mini clown version of her – she had me when she was 19, and I was always by her side. This was a special holiday. All of them were, whether we were in Florida or a caravan in Scotland. Mum and Dad ran a family hotel, along with her sisters and my grandpa and grandma. The work schedule was brutal, so holidays were a big deal. Our time together was about our little unit – Mum, Dad, me and my brother – making the most of it. The hotel was an amazing environment to grow up in – it's where I got my work ethic, but also where I learned how to talk to people. I'd always be at the reception, answering the phone, greeting guests as they arrived, or working behind the bar. It was a portal to a life outside our tiny little fishing village of Anstruther. People would stay from all over the world and I would get snapshots into different cultures outside our bubble. Mum always jokes that she knew I was going to leave before I did. Growing up, we'd often have radio stations come and do roadshows from the hotel, which totally sparked my ambition. But the older I got, the more claustrophobic I felt. Case in point: I applied for my driving licence the day of my 17th birthday. I was kind of a shitty teenager because of the boredom, and started drinking really early. I didn't do well in my Higher exams as a result, which was bad because they were a ticket out of Anstruther. But, eventually, I knuckled down. I got work experience at Radio Forth in Edinburgh before I even started uni, and my degree suffered because I spent every minute in the studio. I was also sending out tons of show reels, but I got loads of knockbacks, and bad feedback about my accent. Thankfully, MTV gave me a shot – they wanted to represent the UK with a range of voices, which was a first. I'm so glad that I stuck to my guns and didn't have elocution lessons, as being Scottish is who I am, and I'm proud of that. It also ended up becoming my wild card. Even when I was on MTV and Radio 1, I would go back home as often as I possibly could. It didn't matter if I was 'on holiday' – I'd walk in and get my waitress outfit on and do shifts at the hotel, even on Christmas Day. I couldn't not! I made sure to bring Mum along for whatever work trips I went on, too. Presenting T in the Park was one of my gigs, and she would sometimes come with me. I'd work for eight hours straight, so I couldn't really babysit my plus one – I had to trust her to go off and do whatever she wanted. One time she went missing for a while. I was asking everyone: 'Has anyone seen my mum?' My co-host Dougie [Anderson] goes: 'Is that not her on the monitor?' Cut to my mum on screen, side of stage, as Primal Scream play Country Girl. She's there doing air tambourine. Mum is very at ease, no matter who you introduce her to. She met Rod Stewart and managed to hold it together, and spoke to Sharleen Spiteri as if she'd known her a lifetime. A few months after having my first son Rudy, I was struggling. Tom was away on tour, and I was speaking to mum on the phone about nothing in particular. I inherited from her a certain degree of not wanting to burden anyone with my troubles. But she must have detected it in my voice. About four hours later, she appeared at my front door. That's the thing about Mum. She might be good fun, but she is also the person that people gravitate towards for help, support, advice and guidance. In my family, we joke about her name being Eleanor 'I'm fine' Bowman. Even when she had breast cancer in 2004, she was more concerned about how we were feeling about it, and kept it from me and my brother for as long as she could. I have told her she's not allowed to do that any more. No matter what she is going through, she is a beacon of light and I am constantly amazed by her. This was a magical day. We got painted up and then got on a rollercoaster. It was so fast one of the wigs fell off and hit the person behind us! It's funny – I can't remember what I did yesterday, but I do remember everything about that holiday. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Growing up, Edith was expected to help out at the family hotel on the weekends, which meant she had to sacrifice a lot of her time with friends. It didn't stop her, though – she would end up going out at 10 o'clock after her shift finished. Edith was quite wild and rebellious. When we found out that she had started smoking we were awful to her – making her smoke a whole cigarette in front of us. It helped, but you wouldn't get away with that now without being reported to Childline. I knew that Anstruther was never going to be big enough for Edith. She tried everything to get into the media – writing to radio and television stations. Nothing came up until the spot at Radio Forth – and even then they said to her: 'You don't expect us to put you on the radio speaking like that?' She thought: 'I don't want to change how I speak. It's me.' The first time she was on the radio, I was picking up a group of golfers from St Andrews and driving them back to the hotel. Just as we were arriving, Edith came on the air – I did six laps of the car park so I could hear it all. Edith is very kind and is always taking me to different gigs. Last year, for my 70th, we went to Munich together to see Adele and Coldplay. It was fabulous. I've met Chris Martin a few times, and he is my favourite. Such a lovely, gentle, sincere guy. I am so proud of Edith. Even though I wanted to be an actress when I was younger, I didn't have the guts to do what she has done. Sometimes she gets a bit of stick for not staying in Scotland, but Scotland really didn't have anything for her when she was looking for it. What I admire most about Edith is that she has never changed. She might be doing the red carpet at the Baftas, or having a coffee with me and my friends after cold-water swimming, and she's still the exact same Edith.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge Trump's Motives, Not Just His Methods
From the G-File on The Dispatch Hey, I'm going to try to make a single point in response to what is shaping up to be the standard, smart, defense of a lot of Donald Trump's doings. That defense usually starts with a series of correct observations about the left's attacks on Trump's actions and/or some correct complaints about Joe Biden's or the Democrats actions. Let's take the recent firings in the Pentagon, which critics call, not indefensibly, a 'purge.' I won't use that word—even though I think it's defensible—because the people who use it want to make Trump's actions sound as sinister as possible. And that tendency is often the first thing Trump's defenders seize on. The dirty bathwater of exaggerated complaints often offer an opportunity to toss the baby of the core complaint out with it. The leftwing outrage holds that the military should somehow be independent of civilian control. Sometimes this argument is made with a lot of nuance. Sometimes not. The nuanced position is that Trump's firings are pretextual, unusual, and in violation of all manner of norms. The less nuanced ones cover a broad spectrum, from accusations of excessive politicization to banana republic autocratic shenanigans to 'literally Hitler.' But what unites these critiques is the insinuation or declaration that somehow the military is out of the purview of the commander-in-chief. The smart defenders of Trump are absolutely correct that this is an unsupportable claim. One of the most important bedrock mechanisms of our constitutional design is that the military answers to civilian leadership. As National Review's Dominic Pino put it on the Editors podcast, 'I think it's completely wrong, the Democrats' argument that somehow the military is this independent thing that politicians don't get any say over, that's not right. As a constitutional matter, the president is the commander-in-chief. So he gets to do this.' Or as Charlie Cooke puts it, 'You know, civil control of the military is one of the important defining features of, separating, normal, healthy democracies from authoritarian countries. And so, I don't have any issue with it, on its face.' I have no objection to the core of this argument. I do, contra Charlie, have 'issues.' Because looking at this 'on its face' is definitionally superficial. Charlie goes on to say, 'The case that I keep reading, including in major serious newspapers, seems to imply that the risk of Trump's having switched out staff is that the people he has chosen instead will be unwilling to defy him, will be unwilling to push back, will be unwilling to tell him no. But they shouldn't be telling him no.' Well, I want generals willing to say 'No.' And I don't think Charlie really disagrees with me. It depends on the what, why and how they tell him no. Military officers don't just take an oath to follow the president's orders, they also take an oath to defend the Constitution and abide by the chain of command as laid out in regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I don't want any generals who will put obedience to the president above obedience to the Constitution. And, again, I am quite positive Charlie doesn't either. So if President Trump orders a general to shoot protesters, an idea he allegedly floated during protests outside the White House during his first term, I want generals who will refuse that order. They should be honest about it and resign rather than carry out an unlawful order. But even beyond that, I want generals who will say no, or at least forcefully push back, against stupid or immoral orders. Again, it shouldn't take the form of sabotage or secret conspiracies. No one should say 'yes' to the commander-in-chief, then refuse to follow through. But if Trump ordered the Navy to surround Greenland in a show of force to intimidate a NATO ally, I would like it if the generals went to considerable lengths to explain to the president why the order was a bad idea and, ultimately, one they would refuse to carry out. Then face the consequences as a result. The president both practically and as a matter of law and statecraft is entitled to loyal officers. He's not entitled to unquestioning yes-men. Here, too, I suspect Charlie agrees. But my point isn't to argue about civil-military relations, or pick a fight with Charlie, a good friend and someone I admire greatly. Rather, my point is that I think focusing on civil-military relations illustrates my problem with what I've been calling the smart conservative approach generally. This approach of taking each controversy as a single, isolated argument amounts to debating single trees while ignoring the forest. To be blunt: This approach's fundamental problem is it treats Trump as a kind of academic abstraction. What can the president do? rather than the more pressing question: Why is this president doing this? Treating Trump as a depersonalized Constitutional officer can be very clarifying on specific controversies. But it ends up erasing the broader context. The theme of the pudding gets lost in arguments about the ingredients. Consider the scandal—and it is a scandal—with the case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. When Trump's Justice Department told them to drop the corruption charges against Adams because he was getting in line with Trump's preferred immigration policy, prosecutors who put professional ethics ahead of the whims of the president quit—and that's exactly the way Trump wants it. He doesn't want DOJ officials who are loyal to any other commitments. Or consider the walking scandal that is Ed Martin, a MAGA lawyer who has defended January 6, 2021, defendants and who attended Trump's speech before the riot at the Capitol building that day. He is the new U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Responding to the flap between the Associated Press and the use of Trump's preferred term of the 'Gulf of America,' he posted on X, 'As President Trumps' [sic] lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first.' The lawyers in that office are the 'president's lawyers' only in the narrow, trees-over-forest, analysis I referenced above. But in the broader context, they are not Trump's lawyers. They are the presidency's lawyers, not this president's personal henchmen. But Trump does not recognize a distinction there. Just last night, Trump ordered that Covington and Burling, a law firm representing Jack Smith, the prosecutor overseeing the federal cases against Trump before Trump's election made them a dead letter, be punished for lending aid and comfort to Smith. The message is not subtle. The federal government is Trump's personal machinery of retribution. Can he do that? Yes. But should he do it is the far more important question. Paul Ingrassia, Trump's new White House liaison with the Department of Homeland Security, is a social media troll and goon who supported the imposition of martial law to keep Trump in office in 2021. The head of the FBI, Kash Patel, is a red-pilled zealot who wrote children's books about a King Trump and a helpful wizard named 'Kash.' Patel's new deputy director is Dan Bongino. Though he is a former Secret Service officer, he has zero significant or relevant management experience in law enforcement, and no experience within the FBI whatsoever. But he is a loyalist. Indeed, across a vast swath of government—pretty much all of it—the overriding criteria for appointment aren't professional qualifications, experience, or commitment to the Constitution or even good government, but personal loyalty to the president. The sine qua non of staffing the administration is whether you can be counted upon to follow Trump's orders and ape Trump's obsessions. Candidates for top intelligence jobs, for example, were asked whether January 6 was an 'inside job,' who were 'the real patriots' on that day, and who won the 2020 election. Oh, and let's not forget his blanket pardons for January 6 rioters, including those found guilty of brutalizing police. From law enforcement, to national security, to the administration of justice, it's hard to refute the claim that Donald Trump wants enablers, yes-men, and loyalists, who make their top priority Trump's aggrandizement. Even his foreign policy requires a daily display of loyalty to his lies about simple, but very important, moral truths. It also seems increasingly clear that he wants a press corps that sees nothing wrong with that, which is why this supposedly 'pro-free speech' administration is going after the AP for refusing to recognize the 'Gulf of America' name change and playing other petty games with the White House press pool. Now, it's fine to beat up on the press for its stunningly high self-regard, or to point out its excesses. I've been doing that for 30 years. It's also fine to point out that the president can do all of these things (or most of them, pending court approval). It's also fine to argue, as Rich Lowry does here, that the Biden administration politicized the Pentagon or, as many have argued, that it politicized the Department of Justice. But not all politicizations are equal. By which I mean, Trump's politicizations are utterly self-serving. They are not connected to a larger ideological or intellectual framework. I've struggled to articulate why this is different from previous presidential projects. One term I've found helpful is personalism. Another, with regard to Trump's foreign policy, is 'sovereigntism.' But those are unsatisfying to me because they lend an air of intellectual rigor to a man who rejects intellectual rigor as a challenge to his will-to-power. So, I went with Trump's mobster worldview. Jonathan Rauch, borrowing from Max Weber, offers another fancy word that fits quite well: Patrimonialism: Patrimonialism is less a form of government than a style of governing. It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations. Whatever framework you apply, I think the underlying truth, the actual fact patterns, are all the same. And that's my problem with the smart defenses of a lot of Trump's actions. They depend on imposing a constitutional vision—a vision I share—on a political actor who, to the extent he thinks about it at all, sees the Constitution as a relic and impediment to his desires and little more. He may adhere to its bright lines, but not out of fidelity to it or out of a commitment to an alternative theory of how it works. He stays within the constitutional guardrails—to the extent he does—solely out of political necessity. And his appointments and actions signal that he will leap over those guardrails whenever he finds it in his interest to do so. He surrounds himself not just in his administration, but in the political and journalistic industrial complex built up around him, with people—including foreign populists and nationalists—who are willing to pretend, or eager to believe, that Trump is, in the words of conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec, 'the living embodiment of the Constitution.' This provides a kind of permission structure that rationalizes each step toward some later violence to the Constitution, which will, like Hemingway's definition of bankruptcy, progress slowly until it's sudden. Again, I am happy to point out (again) that he's not the first president to hold views along these lines. Woodrow Wilson certainly believed the Constitution was a relic holding him back. But pointing out such things should not be a defense of what Trump is so obviously doing—it should be part of the conservative indictment. I do not think the smart conservatives I have in mind necessarily disagree with me in whole or in part. But the tendency to fall back on those academic—and correct!—arguments about the president's power often hinge on a false assumption about Trump's motives. The motives of a president matter a great deal. His politicization of government institutions is not simply a needed corrective to past politicizations, as sorely deserving those politicizations were in need of correction. This is not normal. Trump's program isn't really ideological and certainly not 'conservative' in any traditional sense. If Trump were overseeing the imposition of Reaganism, or even some ideological agenda I disagreed with, those arguments would have greater purchase with me. But MAGA at its best is a pretext, and more often it's not even that. This is the faux-ideology of one person, one person's vanity, grievances and personal glory. That's why I think the 'why' of it all is much more important than debates about 'can.' Sure, he can do a lot of things, because the Founders really didn't envision someone like Trump as president. They envisioned the man who presided over the Constitutional Convention, George Washington. At CPAC last week, Trump noted that Bill O'Reilly said that Trump was a better president than George Washington. To which Trump responded, 'I love beating George Washington.' The audience swooned. Exactly.
