Breaking: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
This statement: “They don't understand that not voting is a vote for Trump.”
Someone needs to help me make sense of that statement. I hear it so often. What logic am I missing?
I hope it don't rain today
I always understood it like THIS.
First if you do not vote AT ALL?
you not PARTICIPATING in the process AND you are not actively working to CHANGE it...
YOU are a problem.
And as we seen for DECADES particular in southern states and the Republican party
they have been concerted efforts involving not only laws (local) and police but VIOLENCE to suppress and rob Black folk of the right to vote
So NOT voting again is not only a slap in the face of our ancestors but is HELPING and GIVING the enemy EXACTLY what it wants
without them even having to DO ANYTHING.
so again NOT voting is ina SENSE giving "trump" exactly what he wants...
LOW turnout form the population he believes would sway the election AWAY from him
a population we have seen he has made EVERY effort to undermine
so by NOT voting
you are making the path EASIER you offering him and his people NO OPPOSITION
So inaction much like SILENCE is actually action to SUPPORT him by doing NOTHING.
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
"Will you be a part of the problem or will you be a part of the solution? Inaction is complicity."
You standing by in silence and inaction just watching the world burn...
is not HURTING Trump at all.
Its hurting all those YOU love and hold dear
Did that help at all cuz?
I got REALLY long winded there, sorry
Logically, when I see that statement, it doesn’t make sense. I see not voting as neither candidate getting a vote because how can not voting be a vote for someone else. That statement is an oxymoron.
I feel like the GOP could use that same logic. “Not voting is a vot for Biden.”
But I understand what you’re saying and what people are trying to convey. I just think it’s a horrible use of logic.
“If you don’t vote, then that’s a vote for Trump.”
“If you don’t vote, then that’s a vote for Biden.”
“If you don’t vote, then neither candidate gets a vote.”
So I my mind, only one of those states are true and makes the most sense.
But I get your interpretation though and don’t disagree.
I KNEW HE WAS GOING TO SAY THIS SH*T!!!!!!
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
If you normally vote dem (or GOP) and sit out or vote third party, that is helping the other side. In 2016 in the states Hillary lost, she loss by less than the number of third party votes cast. If you care about issue xyz and one candidate has vowed to destroy it, but you can't bring yourself to vote for the candidate that will keep a policy in place or promote it, then don't be surprised when the issue you champion gets cut down.
Now there are some instances where a candidate is so bad or doing so much damage that regardless they need to be defeated, but neither Hillary, imo, nor any other presidential candidate I've seen in recent years has met that threshold except Trump. Which is why you see so many Republicans going against him. It doesn't matter if abortion is illegal in the country if there isn't a country left.
Trump is appointing a SCOTUS judge that believes the 14 amendment may be unconstitutional.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...
What the Constitution Really Says About Birthright Citizenship
"The Citizenship Clause is one of the richest single sentences in the entire Constitution"
Trump is right – ending birthright citizenship is constitutional
The president has the authority to end birthright citizenship, as he says he wants to do.
Birthright Citizenship Is Unconstitutional
The 14th Amendment already prohibits birthright citizenship. Read it carefully.
www.afa.net
Immigration Head Says No Amendment Needed To End Birthright Citizenship
"I do not think you need an amendment to the Constitution. I think the question is do you need congressional action or can the executive act on their own," Ken Cuccinelli said during a breakfast event hosted by Christian Science Monitor.
www.newsweek.com
The right has been trying to get enough states on board to have a constitutional convention and make changes for a while now. They say it's for balanced budget amendments. If the GOP is running all the states should this happen, it won't bode well for black folks or other people of color or women. Some of these folks want to get rid of birthright citizenship.
Convention of States Fires Up Base for Push to Rewrite U.S. Constitution
Right-wing group holds its first "Leadership Summit" in Colonial Williamsburg as part of drive to radically curtail the federal government's ability to safeguard civil rights, protect the environment, and regulate big business.
Radical Resolution Calling for a Constitutional Rewrite Passes Wisconsin Assembly
If passed, Wisconsin would become the 16th state to back right-wing efforts to call for a constitutional convention to propose sweeping amendments to the Constitution to curtail the powers of the federal government.
I had posted this in the Protest thread a while back, but didn't bring it to the main board for further discussion:
Could Colin Kaepernick have avoided his fate by voting and encouraging others to vote? Or at least keeping his mouth shut? Did anyone in large enough numbers to matter hear his comments and decide that there was no value in voting? The comment about contributing to your own demise really stuck with me.
Wait colin said don’t vote?
If you normally vote dem (or GOP) and sit out or vote third party, that is helping the other side. In 2016 in the states Hillary lost, she loss by less than the number of third party votes cast. If you care about issue xyz and one candidate has vowed to destroy it, but you can't bring yourself to vote for the candidate that will keep a policy in place or promote it, then don't be surprised when the issue you champion gets cut down.
Now there are some instances where a candidate is so bad or doing so much damage that regardless they need to be defeated, but neither Hillary, imo, nor any other presidential candidate I've seen in recent years has met that threshold except Trump. Which is why you see so many Republicans going against him. It doesn't matter if abortion is illegal in the country if there isn't a country left.
Trump is appointing a SCOTUS judge that believes the 14 amendment may be unconstitutional.
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Daily Kos
Daily Kos is a progressive news site that fights for democracy by giving our audience information and resources to win elections and impact government. Our coverage is assiduously factual, ethical, and unapologetically liberal. We amplify what we think is important, with the proper context—not...m.dailykos.com
What the Constitution Really Says About Birthright Citizenship
"The Citizenship Clause is one of the richest single sentences in the entire Constitution"time.com
Trump is right – ending birthright citizenship is constitutional
The president has the authority to end birthright citizenship, as he says he wants to do.www.foxnews.com
Birthright Citizenship Is Unconstitutional
The 14th Amendment already prohibits birthright citizenship. Read it carefully.
Immigration Head Says No Amendment Needed To End Birthright Citizenship
"I do not think you need an amendment to the Constitution. I think the question is do you need congressional action or can the executive act on their own," Ken Cuccinelli said during a breakfast event hosted by Christian Science Monitor.
The right has been trying to get enough states on board to have a constitutional convention and make changes for a while now. They say it's for balanced budget amendments. If the GOP is running all the states should this happen, it won't bode well for black folks or other people of color or women. Some of these folks want to get rid of birthright citizenship.
Convention of States Fires Up Base for Push to Rewrite U.S. Constitution
Right-wing group holds its first "Leadership Summit" in Colonial Williamsburg as part of drive to radically curtail the federal government's ability to safeguard civil rights, protect the environment, and regulate big business.prwatch.org
Radical Resolution Calling for a Constitutional Rewrite Passes Wisconsin Assembly
If passed, Wisconsin would become the 16th state to back right-wing efforts to call for a constitutional convention to propose sweeping amendments to the Constitution to curtail the powers of the federal government.
I had posted this in the Protest thread a while back, but didn't bring it to the main board for further discussion:
Could Colin Kaepernick have avoided his fate by voting and encouraging others to vote? Or at least keeping his mouth shut? Did anyone in large enough numbers to matter hear his comments and decide that there was no value in voting? The comment about contributing to your own demise really stuck with me.
So wait now it's Kaep's fault that over 50% of white women, DIDN'T vote for a white female. Its Kaep' fault that in three States, Jill Stein got 20-40K votes that tipped the scale to Trump. It's Kaep's fault that Clinton never campaigned in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Maybe if Clinton would have saw a man, risk it all for murdered Black people, and said wait maybe we need to work with him and define REAL federal changes, maybe he would have voted.
These people who criticize him, have risked absolutely nothing. Yes, that man should have voted, but his fight was for murdered Black people. That was his stance. Respect his sacrifice, and try and help him and others to move forward to vote NOW, not shit on them as if his one vote in a Blue State was the energy that led to her loss. Clinton got beat by a racist, because she didn't work hard enough. Maybe Democrats should give that so called leftist ideology a shot one of these primaries.
McConnell orchestrated this shit like a fucking masterpiece. All you can do is tip your cap to the diabolical effectiveness. How in the hell did he outsmart EVERYBODY, from little ass Kentucky.
Yeah she really fucked up, by not stepping down. This is why all that "she is a feminist icon, RBG shit is wack to me" The country will recede back 50 years for her inability to plan under a Black president.
Black folks please wake the fuck up and vote in EVERY election for the rest of your lives, or we are doomed.
I'm not saying anything is his fault and I acknowledged the third party voters in the post you quoted. Kaep didn't deserve what happened to him and Trump shouldn't be targeting private citizens regardless, but how many people did he influence to sit out or vote third party?
If he lives in Cali the argument could be made his vote doesn't matter, but how many people who live elsewhere did he influence?
Just like white women who voted third party freaking out over RBG. They had a chance to maintain power and chose to concede it. They were comfortable in their protest vote because they didn't think Trump would win in the first place.
I haven't seen Colin complain about Trump, so I don't put him in that category, but there is no denying that Trump was able to influence the NFL only because he was POTUS. Kaep suffered directly as a result of his presidency.
Voting, or not, has consequences.
Just enough people dropped the ball, combined with voter suppression and Russian propaganda and everything is in place to do it again with the addition of effin with the mail service and telling people to vote twice so he has proof of voter fraud.
Orchestrating ignorance is actually easier than most people think. All you have to do is find a thing that people hate (or even that they think they hate) and then feed into that.
Why do you think that Obama's Hope message was so harshly targeted and criticized? Racism was part of it, but people having hope for the future is the exact opposite of the environment that McConnell and co. wanted. They created an entire campaign of fear, hate and prejudice, simply to kill any chances that people might find that reasonable.
And once you tap that well of darkness, once you give people not just the freedom to be their worse selves but permission, that's how you end up with 40 percent of the already apathetic voting base thinking that a raving lunatic of a man is heavensent. Ignorance doesn't need that big of a push in the eye of fanaticism.
GO VOTE. VOTE EARLY. HELP YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS VOTE.
These go out and vote campagins are useless, the people who regularly vote will vote while the rest will just complain.
not voting means youre leaving the choice for president up to knuckledraggers without checking them.
your vote NULLIFIES the vote of an imbecile.
if you dont negate them, their ignorance will pile up until it wins.
Opinion | My Unlikely Friendship With Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Published 2020)
I was a young, African-American Southerner, working in a Republican administration. But I loved Bach’s Goldberg Variations, and that was enough for her.
My Unlikely Friendship With Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I was a young, African-American Southerner, working in a Republican administration. But I loved Bach’s Goldberg Variations, and that was enough for her.Sept. 21, 2020
The author and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2017.Credit...Collection of Eric L. Motley
- Share full article
Mr. Motley is the executive vice president of the Aspen Institute.
[Follow our live coverage of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s commemoration and the Supreme Court vacancy.]
Our improbable friendship began in 2002 at a Georgetown dinner party, and it began with music. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a Jewish urbanite who had just turned 69 and had been appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by a Democratic president. I was a 30-year-old African-American from the rural South who had recently arrived in Washington to serve as a special assistant to George W. Bush.
Aware of my status as the new kid on the block, I soon was put at ease at the dinner by the friendly man seated next to me, Marty Ginsburg. I’ll always remember our conversation.
So what do you do when you’re not working at the White House? he asked. I replied that listening to music and reading were my chief interests.
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
He turned and said, my wife and I love music; what are you listening to now?
When he learned that I was researching different renditions of Bach’s Goldberg Variations, he asked for my favorite. Without hesitation, I replied, “Glenn Gould, 1955.” Addressing his wife on the other side of the table, he said, “Ruth, you have to meet Eric.”
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
We continued to discuss music and many other interests for the next 17 years. She sent me CDs and articles and sometimes over dinner would explain complicated legal cases. When I began writing a memoir of growing up in a poor community in Alabama founded by former slaves, including my great-grandfather, she asked to read the manuscript, and her keen insight resulted in several suggestions.
She also shared her own recollections that helped me understand the roots of her lifelong passion for equal opportunity for every person. Once we talked about people who had made lasting impressions on us when we were young. She recalled being mesmerized by the conductor of a children’s concert she attended in Brooklyn in 1944, when she was 11 years old. She was both sad and incredulous to learn I had not heard of the African-American conductor, Dean Dixon, and his inability to land a conductor’s job at a major symphony orchestra simply because of his race.
“Sit down,” she said, as I recall. “We cannot end the evening until you know his story. Can you imagine someone with so much skill and genius, conducting all over the world, and yet unable to find a job in his own country just because of the color of his skin?”
While many of the topics we discussed touched on the political, we never spoke of politics in a partisan fashion; rather, we spoke of ideas that underlie political theories and ways of thinking. We never reduced the complexity of ideas to partisan labels. We always discussed issues, even potentially divisive ones, from a cultural and historical perspective, more nuanced than the Democratic versus Republican dichotomy allows. As it so often turned out, our views on those ideas were not as far apart as our nominal party affiliations might have suggested.
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
I would often sit quietly like a student at the feet of a master teacher when she would suddenly say in her quiet way, Eric, what are you thinking? We are friends, and I hope you know that you can say whatever you want.
She was a friend in all seasons, and I would forget who she was, because she would remind me that friendship mattered most. When she first met my fiancée, after knowing me as a single person for 15 years, she looked at me and said, “It’s about time!”
When the pandemic forced a postponement of the wedding where she was to be a reader, she offered to marry us quietly in her apartment so that we could get on with our lives and celebrate later. She even shared with us a draft of how she planned to personalize the civil service of union. After we had quarantined ourselves for a month, the quiet ceremony was scheduled for last Friday. But two days earlier we had learned that she needed to reschedule.
We clung to the hope that someday soon Justice Ginsburg would be able to unite us in matrimony. Needless to say, the news of her death, on the very day of the planned ceremony, devastated us. To have a Supreme Court justice marry you is one thing, but to lose a friend is everything. Later that night, I made reference in my diary to what Wordsworth refers to as “Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.”
People often asked both of us how we became friends. Last December, at dinner one evening she succinctly replied: “A common love for ideas, for music. It was really the Goldberg Variations that brought us together.”
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
When I listen to Bach’s marvelous, deeply stirring music, I am reminded that in all of these variations — all this flux of life, especially in the inner ups and downs — there is an exquisite order I can actually experience, which is so beautiful that it must be real. In that one piece of music, so beautiful and complex, both she and I discovered that these Variations had become a fixture in our lives.
On the night of her death, like thousands of others, my fiancée, Hannah, and I visited the Supreme Court. We climbed those marbled steps of majesty, and at the great bronze doors we left a single white rose. As I held Hannah’s hand, I remembered the love of Marty and Ruth and imagined my new beginning with Hannah. Then we came home and put on the Goldberg Variations.
www.facebook.com
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is a tragedy. The Supreme Court’s rules made it a political crisis.
How to lower the stakes on Supreme Court vacancies.by Ezra Klein
Sep 18, 2020, 9:25 PM EDT
Ruth Bader Ginsburg on January 21, 2018. Robin Marchant/Getty Images
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is a tragedy. Ginsburg was a pioneer, a brilliant jurist, and a moral force. Losing anyone of her stature, and her talents, is gutting. But Ginsburg’s death is also a political crisis — one she saw coming. In a final statement, dictated to her granddaughter, Ginsburg said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Ginsburg’s death leaves the Senate in dangerous territory. McConnell has made his position clear. His stance on Garland was about power, not principle, and he has no intention of holding a vacancy open for Joe Biden to fill. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said in a statement following Ginsburg’s death. Democrats remain livid over the Garland affair, and adding more justices to the Court — an idea known as “court-packing” — to balance out McConnell’s machinations has gained currency among key Democratic senators, and understandably so.
It’s possible that a crisis here will be averted by a critical mass of Republicans refusing to vote on a replacement until after the election. Prior to Ginsburg’s death, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Susan Collins (R-ME) have said they’d follow the Garland rule and hold a vacancy open until after the election. Now we’ll see if they meant it.
Whatever the outcome, the core problem is the stakes of Supreme Court nominations: They’re too damn high. The Supreme Court isn’t merely an undemocratic branch of government but a randomly undemocratic branch of government. And that randomness, and the stakes of seeing it play out in your side’s favor, turn vacancies into crises.
Supreme Court justices serve for life — which, given modern longevity and youthful nominees, can now mean 40 years of decisions — and no one knows when the next seat will open. President Jimmy Carter served four years and saw no open seats. President George H.W. Bush served four years and filled two. Barack Obama served two terms and confirmed two justices. After Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s blockade of the nomination of Merrick Garland, Donald Trump has already filled two vacancies, and Ginsburg’s death opens a third, raising the possibility that Trump will fill more vacancies in four years than Obama filled in eight.
In practice, the Supreme Court decides how elections are funded, whether abortions are legal, whether millions of people will continue to have health insurance — if legislators and activist groups see its composition as a matter of life and death, that’s because it often is. This is why, in 2016, McConnell refused to consider any of President Obama’s nominees to fill the vacancy left by Justice Antonin Scalia: Keeping a conservative majority on the Court was, for Republicans, worth any amount of damage to the institution, and to American politics more broadly.
These same incentives create extraordinary pressure for justices to stay on the bench long after they might have otherwise retired, in the hopes that they can outlast an ideologically unfriendly administration. They bias presidents toward nominating the youngest confirmable jurist they can find, rather than the best candidate they can find. And they turn an institution meant to be insulated from the political system into a threat to the political system, as almost any political cost is worth bearing if it leads to control of the Court.
Rick Perry was right. We need 18-year Supreme Court terms.
The Supreme Court should reflect the Constitution and the country, not the quirks of longevity. Holding justices to a single, nonrenewable term would lower the stakes of any individual Supreme Court nomination as well as make the timing of fights more predictable.An idea like this could have bipartisan support: Rick Perry proposed 18-year terms in his 2012 Republican presidential bid, making an argument that I think sounds even more persuasive today:
Eighteen-year terms would also ensure the Supreme Court keeps closer touch to the country. A seat on the Court is a plum job, and it’s understandable that few want to give it up. But there are too many examples of justices serving after their faculties began to fail; Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for instance, missed 44 oral arguments in 2004 and 2005, after undergoing a tracheotomy to treat thyroid cancer. Nevertheless, he declined to step down and, shortly thereafter, died in office.
Even in less extreme cases, serving as a Supreme Court justice is the kind of job that pulls you far out of normal human context. You’re one of the most powerful people in the country, surrounded by ritual and deference, traveling in only the most rarefied circles. In an institution like that, more new blood, more often, is probably a good thing.
Implementing term limits for the Supreme Court would be a step toward repairing and normalizing a process that raises the stakes of vacancies beyond what our politics, or the human beings who serve on the Court, can comfortably bear. It would be one important way we could deescalate the stakes of American politics, and protect the system from total breakdown.