Making fun of music, one song at a time. Since the year 2000.
Check out the two amIright misheard lyrics books including one book devoted to misheard lyrics of the 1980s.
(Toggle Right Side Navigation)

Song Parodies -> "Who's Next (to kick Trump off the ballot)"

Original Song Title:

"Who's Next"

Original Performer:

Tom Lehrer

Parody Song Title:

"Who's Next (to kick Trump off the ballot)"

Parody Written by:

Adam Bernstein

The Lyrics

Every state mentioned here is considering or already has kicked the January 6th man off the ballot.
'First Colorado banned the bum
The evil criminal called Trump,
Then Maine kicked off the ‘24 ballot
The election denying sick maggot
Who's next?

California wants to too,
but Gavin Newsom misconstrued
Jersey’s onboard with Amendment 14,
And West Virginia made the scene,
Who's next?

Arizona and Alaska,
New York and Nevada,
Wyoming also said they might
Because Liz Cheney knows what’s right,
Who's next?

Wisconsin will ban him too,
Even Texas may ensue,
So Vermont’s getting tense, South Carolina has sense
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case ---we better ban the bum,
Who's next?

Virginia also wants Trump gone---who knows ---maybe Oregon.
The Ultramagas will freak out
when every state kicks him out.
Who's next, who's next, who's next? Who's next?

Your Vote & Comment Counts

The parody authors spend a lot of time writing parodies for the website and they appreciate feedback in the form of votes and comments. Please take some time to leave a comment below about this parody.

Place Your Vote

 LittleLots
Matches Pace of
Original Song: 
How Funny: 
Overall Score: 



In order for your vote to count, you need to hit the 'Place Your Vote' button.
 

Voting Results

 
Pacing: 1.0
How Funny: 1.0
Overall Rating: 1.0

Total Votes: 497

Voting Breakdown

The following represent how many people voted for each category.

    Pacing How Funny Overall Rating
 1   495
 495
 495
 
 2   0
 0
 0
 
 3   0
 0
 0
 
 4   2
 0
 0
 
 5   0
 2
 2
 

User Comments

Comments are subject to review, and can be removed by the administration of the site at any time and for any reason.

Ben Adam Z. - January 01, 2024 - Report this comment
Remember, folks, DemoKKKRATS insist that "democracy" means kicking the rightful winner of the 2020 election off the ballot... kinda like how they insisted that "democracy" meant kicking the rightful winner of the 1860 election off the ballots in the treasonous Confederate states back then.
Phil Alexander - January 02, 2024 - Report this comment
OK, Ben - please point to what it is that makes you so sure that Trump was the "rightful winner". I have asked this well over a dozen times on amiright, and so far nothing, zero, nada, zilch that shows anything of the sort. So, because it is clear you can't come up with some actual evidence, this frothing at the mouth just makes you look like a deluded cultist to be laughed at rather than given any kind of credence.

Adam - enjoyed the parody, though tripped over the pacing in a couple of places :-) Looks like you've *really* triggered the simpleminded... I mean, how many times can one guy clear his cookies and vote 1s? :-D
Zen Adam B. - January 02, 2024 - Report this comment
True, Ben (or whatever his actual name is) needs to someday move out of his momma's basement. ;-p
eeL deaL - January 02, 2024 - Report this comment
if justice prevails, Dump is as disqualified from being on the ballot as are those under 35 years old and those not born in the US. the US supreme court didn't help him stay in power but can still help him wrongly regain it. hopefully they'll rule correctly.
Rand - January 02, 2024 - Report this comment
Does anyone here actually enjoy this daily crapfest?
CML - January 02, 2024 - Report this comment
Me too, ED. I especially hope they read the last sentence of Section 3, which explicitly states that it would be the US Congress that would tasked to determine if an individual was engaged in an insurrection, as opposed to fivegrotesquely arrogant, foaming at the mouth "justices" of an average sized state. And I hope the Court takes note of the historical context of "insurrection" ie, a Civil War which killed 4% of the male population of the country. Somehow, I dont think peacefully parading around the Capitol Building is in the same ballpark
Phil Alexander - January 02, 2024 - Report this comment
The last sentence of section 3, you say?
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
...that explicitly states that Congress may vote to "remove such disability", which to anyone with an understanding of the English language would surely mean they could by dint of a 2/3 majority overturn a decision to bar someone, not that they're the ones who need to make the decision in the first place.

Yes, the amendment was first passed in the context of civil war, but to assert that conditions must be as bad as that again before it can apply seems a little like grasping at straws. And "peacefully parading" is an outright lie, an attempt to rewrite history and a huge insult to those who died in such "peaceful" parades.

Really, CML, you have no intellectual honesty whatsoever. Obviously spending too much time listening to voices happy to lie so that they don't alienate their audience without a shred of critical thinking. I'm still waiting for what it is that makes you so sure the election was stolen: years later, you have still provided *nothing*.
CML - January 03, 2024 - Report this comment
As long as we are talking about honesty, let me bring up a thread on the parody song, "Counterfeit Biden" where Phil and I spilled several gallons of ink (3000 words or so) about the 2020 election. So when Phil speaks about us "frothing at the mouth" about this issue, he is knowingly engaging in one of the most vile slanders imaginable. ..... And one reason one should take my arguments seriously is that I worked as a poll inspector for thirty years in AZ. With that being said, I invite anyone to read the thread and draw their own conclusions ... One thing -- Phil speaks about direct evidence. Well of course there is no direct evidence; the miscreants did away with it. What we have is OVERWHELMING indirect evidence from events that are a hundred orders of magnitude beyond unprecedented, that scream out for an explanation. I mean, there is as much indirect evidence of electoral fraud as there is for the idea that there is a dark side to the moon. But until we could get a spacecraft up there, there was no "direct evidence". So, up until the mid Sixties, I suppose you could still believe that the moon was a gigantic lighted disk
Phil Alexander - January 03, 2024 - Report this comment
"one of the most vile slanders imaginable"?? ROFL

You are talking rubbish, have always been talking rubbish and have been completely unable to support any of your claims. So just because you're a a former poll inspector, we're supposed to believe your delusions about massive amounts of evidence deletion, all done so incredibly well that not a single iota exists any more - how many other poll workers (former or current) would agree with you? You really think the conspirators were so incredibly competent that even the man Trump paid to find fraud concluded there was none - his conclusion was the raw numbers simply do not support the contention that the result was anything other than fair and clean. But of course, a former poll worker knows better.

If you evidence is so "OVERWHELMING" that it deserves all capitals, you'd think that there might be *something* you could point to which actually suggests fraud. But there isn't. Or not that you've pointed to so far.

I haven't explicitly asked for direct evidence: indirect & pointers towards fraud would be fine. But all you have is suspicion, rumour and fabrication - at least, that's all that has been provided so far. You want to believe so badly, that you're not thinking about it any more (if you ever did).

And on that Counterfeit Biden parody (http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/thebeatles3838.shtml ), I'd say the discussion *completely* supports my contention that you have nothing other than suspicion, rumour and fabrication. You've believed all sorts of utter twaddle - in some cases merely unsupported, in others shown to be wrong - and a complete inability to admit those instances where you've claimed something untrue.

This is what I mean about a lack of intellectual honesty.
Libby - January 03, 2024 - Report this comment
That voter fraud evidence they keep talking about must be in the same elusive magic box where they have the dirt on Biden. :):):)
Phil Alexander - January 12, 2024 - Report this comment
Oh, surprise surprise... CML has run away again: he does this every time, claiming lots and never, *ever* providing anything that is even a pointer towards a single extra vote for Biden, let alone the millions more he polled. I suspect deep down CML knows he's wrong but is too scared to admit it, especially here.
Phil Alexander - February 23, 2024 - Report this comment
Man I need to stop being ironic.
Zen Adam B. - February 29, 2024 - Report this comment
The vote fraud evidence is in the box with the Iraq WMD evidence.
Zen Adam B. - February 29, 2024 - Report this comment
I glow so bright.

The author of the parody has authorized comments, and wants YOUR feedback.

Link To This Page

The address of this page is: http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/tomlehrer49.shtml For help, see the examples of how to link to this page.

This is view # 520