The Epic Battle Over Anthony Kennedy’s Replacement Is the Charadiest of All Charades Ever

Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced his retirement. Now, we’re being told, Democrats are about to wage a big battle to prevent a right-winger who might overturn Roe v. Wade from replacing him. In reality, of course, there’s nothing Democrats can do but posture. Trump will get his pick. Democrats will suck up to moderate Republicans, who will vote for Trump’s person no matter what. Why bother with this time-wasting charade?

78 thoughts on “The Epic Battle Over Anthony Kennedy’s Replacement Is the Charadiest of All Charades Ever

    • Okay, that worked, let’s try my previous post minus the link. Sorry if it turns out to be a dup.

      [Moving thread to top]

      @American Liar:

      I believe I found the article you’re referencing, but for some reason the site won’t let me post it.

      Is this the article you mean?


      ‘cuz it doesn’t say a damn thing about mommy being scammer. Not one word. You are a liar. You have misrepresented the facts. You have borne false witness against thy neighbor. You’re gonna burn in Hell.

      Posting a link isn’t all that hard – ask any of your students how. It’ll be the first time anyone learned anything in one of your classrooms. I’m done doing your homework for you, if you can’t verify one of your assertions, I’ll simply assume you’re lying.

      > Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

      Right. Very good. Gold star. I never said he did … hello?

      > The founders were not born in a country; they were born in colonies.

      :: rolls eyes :: Now you’re just splitting hairs in a pathetically transparent attempt at evasion. Fine, the founders were born British citizens whose king was also the head of the church. When they created a new country, they explicitly forbade the government from interfering with religious matters. That was the important part of my post – in direct opposition to your ridiculous assertion that there was no such thing as the separation of church and state. Now, would you care to actually address the issue, or are you going to keep trying to wiggle out of it?

      > Go read up on Kavanaugh and get back to me.

      Knock, knock. McFly? Anybody home? Might I remind you that you said you answered all questions? Have you forgotten your lesson on “Burden of Proof” already? In the absence of proof to the contrary, I must assume that you’re as full of shit as usual.

      • @ch
        With regard to the scammer Hernandez article in the Daily Mail, ever heard of the word inference?

        No splitting hairs. First Amendment said no establishment of national church. As I said to Alex, government has always been involved in religion, as for example with faith-based initiatives.

        As I said, I’m not giving in to more of your ceaseless demands. Go do research on Kavanaugh. Clearly you have time to kill as evidenced by yesterday’s research on my comments and today’s diatribe.

        You need a job, buddy. Make yourself useful and get one instead of clicking on a keyboard all day.

      • > With regard to the scammer Hernandez article in the Daily Mail, ever heard of the word inference?

        Yes. It’s an entirely different thing than reading something into it that simply isn’t there. Liar.

        > First Amendment said no establishment of national church.

        Oh, god, not that bullshit again.

        There’s an English teacher right down the hall, maybe you should ask her to explain the difference between a definite article and an indefinite article. While you’re at it, you might take a remedial reading course.

        Here is the phrase you’re having difficulty with:

        Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

        “AN establishment” – meaning “a thing which has been established.”


        “THE Establishment” meaning “the act of establishing a thing”

        Madison (Remember? The guy who wrote the Constitution?) often referred to ‘religious establishments’ in his speaking and writing.

        > Go do research on Kavanaugh.

        Damn, but you’re dense. All my research justifies my conclusions. You’re defending *your* conclusions … remember? If that’s too difficult a concept for you, maybe you should go back to watching spongebob while the adults discuss current events.

        > as evidenced by yesterday’s research on my comments

        :: cough :: reading comprehension :: cough ::

        I already told you I stumbled across that looking for something else – a link someone else posted. But hey, if you want to believe you’re the center of my universe, it’s no skin off my nose. (but it is one more reason for me to laugh at your silly posturing.)

  1. No more will SCOTUS make policy. From now on, SCOTUS will say what the law says and what the Constitution says.

    A lot of things are going to get overturned.

      • You could be right.

        But you’re usually wrong.

        And I couldn’t care less

      • I don’t care much either.

        If I did I would put more effort in my comments to you.

        But I don’t.

        So I’ll just toss a few taunts and insults at you when the mood strikes.

        Too many commenters here try to reason with you. I can’t imagine what they expect to get in return.

        I’d rather throw a shit sandwich a you.

        So, eat shit, AT.

      • The mood strikes you a lot, doesn’t it?

        I love the time that you invest in me!

      • Really AT, you’re too sensitive.

        I only post to you so the wimpys will unleash on you.

        Have a second helping of shit, turd breath.

      • Sure, Glenn. Of course.

        You march to my beat.

        And the Court has gone right for at least a generation!

  2. And now the truth comes out: “Anthony Kennedy agreed to retire if Trump promised to replace him with Brett Kavanaugh”, Travis Gettys,

    “The Trump administration has been negotiating Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement for months, according to a new report.”

    “Kennedy agreed to retire at the end of the term that concluded last month once he received assurances that President Donald Trump would replace him with a former law clerk, reported NBC News.”

    Brett Kavanaugh was Anthony Kennedy’s former law clerk.

      • She’ll outlive your outgassing bloated carcass.

        You are supporting an originalist, just like George Washington: a racist, genocidal, self-promoting, gangster.

        Liberals like to lionize the Founders, but most were apt to use their offices for self-enrichment, just like Trump.

        Liberals say that was then.

        I say now is then.

        Liberals can’t believe that the fairy tales they were taught in school by asshole teachers like you were only lies to keep their naive childlike characters well into adulthood and more malleable to power.

        Once one gets the big dick of god and country shoved up one’s ass (the big lies) the little lies all sound more plausible and slip in with little notice.

        Conservatives want to conserve racism, genocide, and legalized pussy-grabbing of women that have no right to terminate a pregnancy from a pig-faced slob like you, and no right to vote and have laws that protect them from the likes of you.

        I heard an asshole from the ACLU blame the presidency of Trump on people who didn’t vote for Hillary.

        No, it’s Hillary’s fault that Trump won.

        If Hillary and the Dems didn’t step all over Sanders in the primary, he would have won more Electoral College votes than Hillary.

        I’m a Forty Per-center.

        Rs and Ds both get less than around 30% of the registered voters.

        The registered voters who don’t vote are about 40%. We are the majority.

        The fake news never reports on those among the 40%, those who think elections are fixed bullshit like professional wrestling and not worth their time.

        The Gilens and Page study proves the 40% are correct, but Rs and Ds gloss over this fact and pretend they didn’t hear it, and like the odds of winning the contest of one 30% versus another 30% instead of courting the 40%.

      • @Glenn – why should the politicos bother court those who don’t vote? They’re not the ones who make the decisions.

        “If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for, but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.”

        – R. A. Heinlein. (no surprises, there)

        As for a well-meaning fool, we have an example right here. (although one must stretch the definition of ‘well-meaning’)

      • @CH

        If the Democrats can’t think of something to attract registered voters they’re not trying hard enough, or they’re afraid of alienating their financiers.

        You cannot convince me that the 40% who come out to register but not to vote are so happy with their lives and their government, that their every economic and justice need has been so satisfied that they couldn’t be enticed to vote for anything better, and so stay home.

        No, the true believers in this system are the naive and the crooks who are looking out for ways to beat some personal economic advantage out of the naive.

      • Ruth is 85. She has a stented heart and has had two forms of virulent cancer. (No, I’m not going to source it.) The likelihood that she’ll last much longer, let alone outlive me is slim.

        It is fashionable to eviscerate the founders of this country and ignore their bravery, intelligence, and competence. I’ve tried to figure out why anyone who has read up on these figures would want to do that and can only conclude that this is Revenge of the Nerds: underperforming misfits who were picked on in school because of their miserable personalities have a chance to strike at those who wielded power, even if they are dead. Isn’t this you, Glenn?

  3. Kavanaugh interprets the Constitution as it is written. That is why you all are going nuts. You see none of this ‘living document’ nonsense in his record.

    The left will try to manufacture a problem to get rid of him, but he seems clean. In fact, he looks all-American, which you all can’t stand.

    • Well, let’s see – he has trouble understanding the separation of church and state, so that’s one down right there.

      If he doesn’t believe that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ then he is most assuredly not following the founders’ intentions – THEY thought it was a living document. (documentation: They designed it such that it could be amended. duh? Also – see the quote below.) That’s two down.

      “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” – Thomas Jefferson

      Do you have any actual examples of him “understanding” the constitution?

      • @ch

        There is no such thing as separation of church and state. The phrase came from a letter of Thomas Jefferson, expressing his understanding of the First Amendment.

        The Constitution may be formally amended, but it is not a living document in the sense that it evolves, changes, and adapts to new circumstances without being formally amended. Formally amending the Constitution is very difficult. That is why you will never get rid of the Second Amendment.

        You quote Jefferson again, but it was Madison who wrote the bulk of the Constitution and, in fact, Jefferson was in Europe when the final draft of the Constitution was signed.

        And you’re calling me ignorant? Seriously?

      • > There is no such thing as separation of church and state.

        > And you’re calling me ignorant?

        Yes. Absolutely. Obviously. 100%. Undeniably and without a shadow of a doubt. The first amendment should be quite clear to anyone with a sixth-grade reading comprehension level. Maybe you can find a sixth-grader to explain it to you.

        Yes, Madison wrote the bulk of the constitution, you get a gold star! He was a devout Christian, yet even he understood the need for the separation of church and state:

        “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?”

        You’re a Catholic. You’re in the minority. If the US regresses into a religious state, then your practice will be outlawed in favor of some Protestant sect.

        Wouldn’t that be nice? Nope – you’d cry your little eyes out. You’d beg to return to the secular state the founders imagined. But then, it would be too late and you’d blame everyone but yourself. As usual.

        Suggested reading: Jefferson and Madison on the Separation of Church and State

      • @gym teacher:

        Nice evasion. Still waiting for examples of Kavanaugh ‘understanding’ the constitution.

      • There is no such thing as separation of church and state.

        First Amendment. “Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The founders understood very clearly to separate the state from religion. They took the wisest path: Government has no business getting involved in religion.

        American Teacher, I have come to the conclusion that you’re just commenting for the satisfaction you get from winding people up. You never answered my question about whether you would teach one student who was making an effort, you post provocative statements over and over that simply do not hold up to scrutiny, nor do you respond to the reasonable challenges made to your assertions.

        Maybe this is something you do for fun or for some sort of emotional or sexual release. And maybe you’ve become so defensive that you are unable to listen to advice. But, frankly, every time you respond like a jackass, all you’re doing is convincing people that you are a jackass. You’re making a fool of yourself.

        If you have intelligent or insightful things to contribute (some of your observations about how some students behave at least had the ring of truth to them) those would be welcome. But you no longer need to say stupid things. You’ve done that so often on this forum that you’re repeating yourself. We all know you aren’t being intellectually serious or factually rigorous. We didn’t laugh the first time you told the unfunny joke, please stop repeating the same material expecting that this time (or the next time, or the time after that) everyone will laugh.

        Seriously. Take a look at how you’re behaving. It isn’t appropriate. It isn’t adult. It isn’t interesting.

      • @Alex

        I did answer your baiting question about teaching. Go back and look. I said ‘Sure.’

        Government has always been involved in religion, lately with faith-based initiatives.

        Ah contraire! I respond to every assertion, every question, and ignore the insults, including yours. I leave you all in the dust.

        Be careful about that single-payer wish, Alex. I lived in one of those countries. Your wish is dangerous and life-threatening.

      • > I respond to every assertion, every question,

        No, you don’t.

        I asked you to corroborate your assertion that the crying little girl’s mommy was a scammer. You never so much as tried. Okay, I get that you are to dumb to post a link. So – tell me what the magic words are that will bring an article to the top of Google search results.

        Above, I asked you to provide examples of Kavanaugh ‘interpreting’ the Constitution ‘as it was written’. I’m still waiting for an answer.

        That’s just two off the top of my head. In general, you do your best to evade – turn the conversation a new direction any time you’re cornered. Far from distracting the audience, it makes it clear that you can’t actually justify your silly-assed opinions.

      • > So why quote Jefferson?

        Because he was one of the principal architects of this country … duh? He wrote the Declaration of Independence and conferred with Madison quite often as he penned the Constitution.

        The same ideals were expressed by many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. (No, I’m not going to document that which should be known to any middle school graduate.)

        Moreover, the founders were born in a country where church and state were inextricably intertwined. If they’d liked that situation, they wouldn’t have voted for a Constitution which explicitly forbade it.

      • @Lying American Gym Teacher:

        “I did answer your baiting question about teaching. Go back and look.”

        No, you didn’t – you flat out ignored it. Here is your response to that very question:

        Don’t let it go to your head, I was looking for something else when I stumbled across it. It was just too good to pass up. The good news is that it doesn’t lower my opinion of your veracity one bit.

      • @ch

        You have a lot of time on your hands, buddy.

        Alex the Tired, not satisfied with my response, asks another time, in another post, in a second paragraph, the first paragraph addressed specifically to Ted, to which I answer ‘sure.’

        Go waste an hour looking it up, loser.

      • @ch

        For the last time, on scammer hernandez: Daily Mail, June 21, authors Daniel Bates and Karen Ruiz. Follow the comments.

        Go read up on Kavanaugh and get back to me.

        I love how leftists love to make demands and when you acquiesce to one, you are only hit with another.

        From redefining marriage to inventing constitutional rights, SCOTUS has been making policy, not interpreting law and the Constitution. In a couple of months, when the Court returns to its traditional role as impartial interpreter and not policymaker, all the toxic policies that have been imposed on the American people will start tumbling down.

        You all know that you are about to lose.

      • @ch

        Last time. Jefferson did not write the Constitution. The founders were not born in a country; they were born in colonies.

        I’m done.

  4. Ted,

    The whole thing about Roe v. Wade isn’t really germane. Let me explain. Roe v. Wade was about privacy, not about legalizing abortion. (Abortion was already legal.) And the ruling was this totally bizarre chimera of a determination, arguing that a woman’s right to privacy took precedent in the first trimester. After that, the state’s interests became more and more relevant. The whole issue has been made a mess for decades now, mainly because people think Roe v. Wade actually did something. All it did was say that a woman has a right (but only up to a point) to not have the state sticking its nose inside her body.

    Technology has rendered Roe v. Wade pretty much pointless. Birth control is readily available. If it’s outlawed, do you really think all the feminists are just going to quietly sit down and pick up their knitting? Don’t tell me someone won’t come up with an equivalent of Uber or Lyft that’s designed to get a woman from a no-abortion state over to a state that does have abortions. The days of “I beat my wife until she came around to my way of thinking” are over. Women aren’t going to go back to abortions in alleys. They will use bro-technology to outwit the men.

    • I’m pretty sure that outlawing abortion is a political minefield similar to outlawing guns. Any politician who brings it about can kiss his career bye-bye.

      It’s just red meat for the wing nuts. The candidates talk big about it every four/six years, then forget about it until campaign season comes around again.

      • It’s also used to distract everyone else as well (but yes, it plays to the wingnuts the best). Example: Hillary Clinton talks about defending Roe v. Wade. “But, Hillary, why won’t you fight for universal single payer health care? Won’t that help a whole lot more women on a much wider range of issues?”

        Crickets while she waits for her handlers to tell her what the focus groups think. “Nine. Eleven.”

      • > It’s also used to distract everyone else

        True, dat. All the politicians and shamans play the same game. “You’re in danger from X. Only I can save you from X. Vote for me (donate to my church) or suffer X.”

        You’d think that by now people would have caught on.

  5. “But please don’t call me a Muppet. ‘Coach’ would be fine.”

    OK, Coach Sam the Eagle,

    The only reason Trump is pushing Brett “Lew Zealand” Kavanaugh is as a defense against being arrested in office for all the crap that has happened in the 1.5 years the Trump counter-Administration has been around… put it in the simplest terms, Trump is not your hero, he’s in it for himself and surviving all of his stupid self-inflicted legal wounds. Your party (assuming you are a Republican) is being destroyed by him. It’s less Berlin, 1945 and more like that Peter Falk film “Tune in Tomorrow.”

    • Okay, Sweetums,

      Assuming that you are correct and that Trump is in it for himself, how would that make him different from Obama, Bush, Clinton, or a host of other presidents?

      Does one have to be a saint to be president? Since when did virtue become important for holding office to a leftie?

      I could care less about the Republicans being destroyed. The party is filled with traitors who have sold their people out.

      Trump is doing things that I want done. That is why I support him.

      • He’s a scam artist, his Wall will never be built, when the going gets truly tough he will eject from the White House leaving us to the tender mercies of the golem from Indiana.

        “Since when did virtue become important for holding office to a leftie?”

        Obama’s virtues were that he read the reports and acted on them; Trump doesn’t even read, which is a reversion to how Reagan was the last three years of his time in office. You ask if there is a difference between Trump and Bill Clinton, and Clinton had ideas but he was stymied by the Fed Reserve chair Alan Greenspan – Trump has vague fatuities like the Wall. He doesn’t think things through.

      • Trump is denaturalizing these scam artists; he is doing away with MAVNI, TPS, CAM, and a host of programs of no benefit to Americans. He has drastically lowered the number of refugees coming here.

        People scale walls. My problem has always been, how are you going to make sure that wall is not breached? Hungary, Saudi Arabia, India, have a 24 hour military presence at their walls. Frankly, we should just put drones up there to pick off these people. Word will get out and they will stop trying. It’s the most humane thing to do.

  6. Who watches the watchers? The Supreme Court is supposed to be ultimate defender of constitution. If they go off the rails, what are we do to? Appeal to congress? The President? God?

    Time to wipe the slate clean and start over.

    • Oh, boo hoo hoo!

      Who is having the hissy fit now?

      It’s not fair! Redo! Redo!

      You’re like the remainers in the UK who want another vote or the people shrieking to do away with the Electoral College because Hillary got the popular vote.

      Guess what? It doesn’t work that way. We’ve sucked it up for fifty years. Now you will have to do the same.

      • > It’s not fair! Redo! Redo!

        Uhhhh, no.

        From Bush v. Gore v. Bush onward, the the SCROTUS has deviated further and further from the Constitution. In general they are ruling for the rich & powerful and against We The People; while allowing superstition and prejudice to insinuate themselves back into our society. That’s a huge step backwards, one wonders why we bothered to have a revolution in the first place.

        I wouldn’t expect an inbred trailer-dweller to understand the subtleties of Constitutional Law, but I damned well do expect the so-called Supremes to do so.

      • The 4th of July has always been a very sad holiday for me, too, Crazy H.

        I much would have preferred remaining with the British Empire. And as for the Declaration of Independence, well, the social leveling is still continuing, isn’t it?

        I doubt your people were on this land when the Revolution took place so I’m not sure why you use the pronoun ‘we’. You’re not really American anyway. I’m going to recommend you for denaturalization.

      • > I much would have preferred remaining with the British Empire … You’re not really American anyway.

        I like you, you’re silly. Who is a Tory to judge who is and is not American?

  7. I thought that teachers are supposed to teach knowledge to the students.To lead students in the prayer you don´t have to know anything, just to have faith? Anybody can do it. Why you studied?
    Poor your students, I really feel for them.

  8. Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh! Kavanaugh!

    We’ll be able to pray again in school! I’ll be able to keep my assault rifles!

    Here’s to the retirement of Ruth!

    • American Teacher,

      As you are a teacher, you are already aware of the following: Prayer is already allowed in school. In ruling after ruling, a student’s right to pray in school has been upheld. What is not allowed is a teacher FORCING a student to pray, or a gang of students forcing another student to pray.

      • Alex the Tired,

        As you well know, I am neither allowed to pray in school nor lead my students in prayer.

        I’m looking forward to posting the Ten Commandments on the wall and leading my students in prayer. Students won’t have to participate, but I’ll make a mental note just as I mentally note who does not stand for the Pledge now.

        Let’s fast walk this nomination.

      • > I am neither allowed to pray in school

        The pit of fire awaits you, liar.

        > nor lead my students in prayer.

        Right. That’s was Alex’s point. That’s a good thing.
        Why do you hate America?

      • @gym teacher – here’s another bible verse you’ve evidently never read, Matt 6:5-6

        “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

        But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

      • @ch

        You are so sadly misinformed and alas, quick to judge.

        The courts, the unAmerican courts, have decreed that I am an agent of the state and not allowed to pray lest it be seen as favoring a religion.

        One year, I had to take my Christmas lights down. And you can imagine what happened when I tried to paint crosses on my guys’ helmets.

        But all of that is about to change, isn’t it?

      • @ch

        Great verse, but I don’t see how I can wiggle it in to my classes.

        Naturally, I’ll do the Beatitudes and discuss mercy when I have to do the unit on deviancy.

        Is there a particular hymn you’d like me to teach the kids? I’m thinking “Onward Christian Soldiers.”

      • > I am an agent of the state and not allowed to pray…

        Link? Any sort of corroboration whatsoever? Oh, of course not – what am I saying? It doesn’t actually matter whether you actually believe that horse shit, or are deliberately lying about it. Either way, it’s still horse shit.

        No court in the US has told you that you can’t pray in school. You can pray all you like. What you cannot do is use your government-sponsored position of authority to promote your particular brand of superstition.

        Even Thy Lord told you to shut yourself in the broom closet. Feel free pray in your bathroom stall, the teachers’ lounge, or even at your desk but if so, quietly and subtly. No, the coach can’t get down on his knees in front of the team, clasp his hands, and loudly ask *his* god to win the game.

        If that’s too subtle a distinction for you, then you shouldn’t be in the public teacher profession in the first place. But that’s been clear from the start.

      • > I’ll do the Beatitudes and discuss mercy when I have to do the unit on deviancy.

        Funny, I don’t remember Jesus mentioning Homophobia whilst sermoning on the mount. Mercy – oh, heck yeah – but that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with homophobia, either.

      • @ch

        This is a blog, not a scholarly article. In any event, pot, you run from providing attribution for your devilish claims.

        I cannot publicly pray in school. I cannot put up my Christmas decorations. I cannot have my priest come in to bless my guys before the game.

        In forty minutes, that is all about to change.

      • @ch


        Mercy for freaks, deviants, and degenerates.

        Blessed are those who show mercy to them and don’t throw them from buildings like members of another religion do.

  9. Now, Ted, gouda is a European cheese (the pronunciation of which no self-respecting resident of the United States would be able to wrap his or her mouth around) and thus surely subject to all sorts of tariffs in the United States and which no serious candidate for the US Supreme Court would be seen within a kilometre of. Surely those female Republican senators are setting the bar too high ?…


      • Please admit that you are a Ted Rall character, “American Teacher”, and that you are the product of Ted’s stress from the Tronc trial. I’m sorry that the LAPD and Tronc have proven to be heartless criminal bastards, Ted, but this Muppet you have created isn’t helping.

        As for Brett Kavanaugh, the bobblehead Trump has nominated to the Court of the Aged, one of his key elements is that he is opposed to indicting Presidents, even though he was a Ken Starr flunkie.

      • @Strelnikov

        And Kavanaugh is great on immigration and guns.

        And American Teacher is not a product of Ted’s imagination. I can’t understand why people think that and, short of revealing my identity, which is not going to happen, I will never be able to convince anyone.

        But please don’t call me a Muppet. ‘Coach’ would be fine.

      • «Please admit that you are a Ted Rall character, “American Teacher”, and that you are the product of Ted’s stress from the Tronc trial.» I’ve wondered about that, Strelnikov ; but if so, I wonder what game Ted is playing here. This poster, who whate s/he may be, certainly isn’t a teacher, but might just possible be a resident of the United States is hardly coherent ; surely if Ted wanted to represent a «conservative» Weltanschauung, he could have done a better job ? Are you saying that this pitiful figure is simply an unprocessed reflection of Ted’s frustration at the (to my mind, hardly surprising) manner in which the (in)justice system in the United States is dealing with him (and perhaps, the lack of public support, which, for example, a specialist in drawing Mr Trump and, again to my mind, far less interesting cartoonist like Rob Rogers, has garnered) ?…

        If so, I’d like to see Ted draw him – that would be far more entertaining than reading the tripe that this figure seems constrained to post to these threads….


      • @Strelnikov

        Many people have asked the same question. The Unamerican non-teacher reads like an experiment in Poe’s Law as conducted by The Onion. I wrote Ted & he maintains that is a real person.

        Unfortunately, people actually exist who are this ill-informed, and who believe that Trump will do them some good. Even worse, their votes count just as much as yours and mine.

      • @ch

        Well, isn’t that American of you, implying that those with whom you disagree should have their votes count less.

        President Trump,

        Please deport Crazy H.

      • > Well, isn’t that American of you, implying that those with whom you disagree should have their votes count less.


        It’s not about “agreement” it’s about “firm grasp of reality” and “understanding of the founding principles of this country.”

        However, I am not about to give the government the power to decide who meets those criteria. Allowing the mis/uniformed to vote is the lesser evil.


Leave a Reply