Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


PeaceNikki's Journal
PeaceNikki's Journal
May 16, 2019

I am pro-abortion, not just pro-choice

Please, for the love of God, stop saying and no one is pro-abortion.

Abortion is a legal, moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.

It's not shameful. Abortion is not a "necessary evil".

I believe that abortion care is a positive social good -- and I think it’s time people said so ~VALERIE TARICO

Recently, the Daily Kos published an article titled I Am Pro-Choice, Not Pro-Abortion. “Has anyone ever truly been pro-abortion?” one commenter asked.

Uh. Yes. Me. That would be me.

I am pro-abortion like I’m pro-knee-replacement and pro-chemotherapy and pro-cataract surgery. As the last protection against ill-conceived childbearing when all else fails, abortion is part of a set of tools that help women and men to form the families of their choosing. I believe that abortion care is a positive social good. I suspect that a lot of other people secretly believe the same thing. And I think it’s time we said so.

As an aside, I’m also pro-choice. Choice is about who gets to make the decision. The question of whether and when we bring a new life into the world is, to my mind, one of the most important decisions a person can make. It is too big a decision for us to make for each other, and especially for perfect strangers.

But independent of who owns the decision, I’m pro on the procedure, and I’ve decided that it’s time, for once and for all, to count it out on my 10 fingers.

1. I’m pro-abortion because being able to delay and limit childbearing is fundamental to female empowerment and equality. A woman who lacks the means to manage her fertility lacks the means to manage her life. Any plans, dreams, aspirations, responsibilities or commitments–no matter how important–have a great big contingency clause built: “until or unless I get pregnant, in which case all bets are off.”


2. I’m pro-abortion because well-timed pregnancies give children a healthier start in life. We now have ample evidence that babies do best when women are able to space their pregnancies and get both pre-natal and pre-conception care. The specific nutrients we ingest in the weeks before we get pregnant can have a lifelong effect on the wellbeing of our offspring. Rapid repeat pregnancies increase the risk of low birthweight babies and other complications. Wanted babies are more likely to get their toes kissed, to be welcomed into families that are financially and emotionally ready to receive them, to get preventive medical care during childhood and the kinds of loving engagement that helps young brains to develop.

Much more that has me applauding in agreement here: http://www.salon.com/2015/04/24/i_am_pro_abortion_not_just_pro_choice_10_reasons_why_we_must_support_the_procedure_and_the_choice/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Here's what you can do today to fight back:

1. Donate to @abortionfunds: https://t.co/JY9MwWRG6g

2. Support @EmergeAmerica, @EMILYSList, @runforsomething, and @TheDLCC, who work to elect pro-choice candidates

3. Join @supermajority to organize for the future


June 11, 2016

Gosh, there should be a book about the persecution that Sanders and his supporters endure

while he travels lands far and near performing miracles, gathering crowds and sharing his message. I'm sure it will include Elizabeth Warren betraying him to the Establishment. And .... hey, wait this sounds familiar!

June 10, 2016

To quote a great DUer on this:

"Intelligent women who have heard her on the abortion issue know that she is accurately reflecting the state of the law for the last 40 years in this nation.... like it or not the state has the right to restrict abortion past the point of viability. It's settled law and that's not going to change.

Women who know reproductive law like me understand exactly what Hillary is saying. That you refuse to accept my expertise and the expertise of organizations like Planned Parenthood doesn't win any points for your argument.

In your attempt to explain reproductive law you only show your shallow understanding of it." ~msanthrope


June 4, 2016

Many of us don't plop signs in our yards, or plaster our bumpers. We support her at the polls.

We aren't 'fans' who are wooed , we're Democrats who understand the impact of this election, we GOTV and focus on the importance of that over rallies and merch.

March 21, 2016

Pppppppffffffffffffffffffffffffft - no it's privileged, arrogant, selfish, narcissistic and stupid

LGBT rights, equal pay, healthcare and abortion rights are fucking toast if we let Republicans very into office.

"Victims"? Of what? Not getting their fucking way?

I am not "blaming" them for anything except being assholes.

March 8, 2016

I know. The cult of personality "fan" or "foe" shit is divisive nonsense.

I am a Hillary supporter, not "fan". She's not Phish, she's a politician.

I don't think she's perfect. I understand she has vulnerabilities and I freely admit she makes gaffes. But I still support her. Not blindly. In fact, I do so with my eyes wide open. There are frankly very few (ok, one) politicians with whom I am in total or near agreement.

I support both of our candidates and will proudly vote for the nominee in November. But I am not a "fan" of either.

I am a fan of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. And the Violent Femmes (who have a new album out, by the way!)

And these speeches, like so much of what either does or says, are being totally blown out of ridiculous proportion.

March 8, 2016

It's a total non-issue.


Over the negative din of politics, it can be hard to hear what’s positive. Hillary Clinton has given $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity (see below). That’s 26 times as much as she made on her three Goldman Sachs speeches combined, or 50% more than she made on her 51 speeches in 2014 and 2015. Before presenting the details, let me summarize.

1) Her fees were not the least bit unusual given her stature.
2) Over 100 lesser known Americans are also in the $200,000+ category.
3) The Goldman Sachs fees were below her average fee.
4) She gave $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity.
5) Charging Goldman Sachs less would have just meant more profits for them and less for charity.

There is simply no evidence, or logic, supporting the idea that she would sell out her whole career and deceive her huge base of supporters with a fake proposal to rein in Wall Street (a proposal that Elizabeth Warren supports). That she would do all this in return for three below-average fees from Goldman Sachs is beyond absurd.

Now take a quick look at a Talk at Golmand Sachs (GS), or at civil-rights-leader John Lewis talking with the CEO of GS, or the CEO of the NAACP or LGBT Professionals speaking at GS. Obviously GS hopes for good publicity and the speakers hope to influence GS. If you’re looking for conspiracies, this is a very silly place to look for them.

Many seem to think the highest possible legitimate speaking fee couldn’t be over $10,000, and anything higher must be a bribe. But looking at the list below, it’s obvious no one is bribing Charlie Rose, Lady Gaga or Larry the Cable Guy, or any of the other 120 people who get paid $200,000 or more per speech.

$50,000 Charlie Rose TV talk show host
$80,000 Malcolm Gladwell Author: Blink, and Outliers
$100,000+ Bill Maher Left commentator MSNBC
$150,000 Condilezza Rice Sect. of State, W. Bush
$200,000+ Jerry Seinfeld Comedian, actor, writer
$200,000+ Hillary Clinton Sect. of State, Obama
$200,000+ Lady Gaga Singer & empowerment speaker
$200,000+ Larry The Cable Guy Radio personality, comedian
$400,000 Ben Bernake Ex-Fed chairman, Bush, Obama

Some will skim this page, see it supports Hillary, and make unsupported accusations. But it is unfair to Hillary to let such false claims go unchallenged, and it is tearing the Democrats apart.

Goldman Sachs paid her $225k in 2013, about $10k less than her average in the list above, and the lowest fee paid in 2013.

It would be foolish to try to bribe someone with a slightly low-ball payment for services. And of course there is a far simpler explanation: She was just earning money by giving speeches. Money for her expenses (sure she lives, but she also works incredibly hard), for the campaign and for her Foundation. End of theory. We’d all love to win the lottery, and she won a decent sized lottery—the speaking-fee lottery. So she cashed in her winning ticket. Wouldn’t we all?

Salon’s Ultimate Moralistic Nonsense
Salon ran an op-ed headlined “Hillary Clinton’s artful smear.” The op-ed, to its credit, never suggests any smear, artful or not, by Hillary. I suppose it’s now politically correct at Salon (which writes the headlines) to bash Clinton.

Also to the op-ed’s credit, it quotes Clinton: “You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I ever received,” and notes, “and there is no evidence to the contrary.” Instead, this is the op-eds’ point:

Salon: It was not nice of Hillary to take that $675,000 from Goldman Sachs, because that is “lost savings and lost homes for bilked investors.”
Really? If she’d spoken for free, GS would have donated that money to the investors they bilked? Does Salon think GS has turned into a sort of Big-Bucks Salvation Army?
follow on: faceBook | Twitter (new)

OK, time for Econ 1. Corporations are for profit. Give one $100, and their profit goes up by $100. They do two things with profits. Pay them to shareholders, and use them to make more profits. That’s call cap-it-al-ism. If Hillary charges less, their shareholders get richer.

The “give it back” crowd is being idiotic. If those with money to burn pay you too much and you give it back, they just burn it for something else. The best you can do is take as much money as possible from Goldman Sachs—50 times more if you can get it—and spend that money on something better than Goldman Sachs’ shareholders would. Duh.

Clinton spends the money three ways: for her own expenses (which are high partly because she’s running for office), on her election campaign ($468,037), and on the Clinton Foundation, 89% of whose funding goes to charity (an excellent track record).

According to the Washington Post, Bill Clinton has contributed speaking fees to their foundation 73 times and Hillary Clinton 15 times. Hillary’s contributions include one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JP Morgan Chase. In total, Hillary donated something over $17.6 million. Contrary to what you may have heard, their foundation is highly efficient with only 11% overhead, and has provided $2,000 million dollars to the poor and needy.

Their foundation projects include training African farmers to get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops, reforestation projects in Africa and the Caribbean, renewable energy projects in island nations, and work to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine and scale up pediatric AIDS treatment. And here’s a picture from Oakland (next door to me) from the Clinton Foundation’s “Too Small to Fail” project.
February 26, 2016

America loves women like Hillary Clinton–as long as they’re not asking for a promotion

It’s hard to remember these days, but just a few years ago, everybody loved Hillary Rodham Clinton. When she stepped down as US secretary of state in January 2013 after four years in office, her approval rating stood at what the Wall Street Journal described as an “eye-popping” 69%. That made her not only the most popular politician in the country, but the second-most popular secretary of state since 1948.

The 2012 “Texts from Hillary” meme, which featured a sunglasses-clad Clinton scrolling through her Blackberry aboard a military flight to Libya, had given rise to a flood of think pieces hailing her “badass cool.” The Washington Post wanted president Barack Obama to give vice president Joe Biden the boot and replace him with Clinton. Taking stock of Clinton’s approval ratings, Nate Silver noted in a 2012 piece for the New York Times that she currently held “remarkably high numbers for a politician in an era when many public officials are distrusted or disliked.”

How times have changed. “The FBI And 67 Percent of Americans Distrust Hillary Clinton,” booms a recent headline in the Huffington Post. Clinton’s favorability ratings currently hover around 40.8%. Bob Woodward complains that “there is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating.” “Hillary’s personality repels me,” Walker Bragman writes in Salon.

How can we reconcile the “unlikable” Democratic presidential candidate of today with the adored politician of recent history? It’s simple: Public opinion of Clinton has followed a fixed pattern throughout her career. Her public approval plummets whenever she applies for a new position. Then it soars when she gets the job. The wild difference between the way we talk about Clinton when she campaigns and the way we talk about her when she’s in office can’t be explained as ordinary political mud-slinging. Rather, the predictable swings of public opinion reveal Americans’ continued prejudice against women caught in the act of asking for power.

This is a great piece. Much more at link: http://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion/
February 22, 2016

OMG not only are they jumping sharks, they are filling schoolbuses with sharks,

lining them up next to each other, setting them on fire, setting themselves on fire, and jumping the flaming schoolbuses filled with sharks, while flaming.

February 21, 2016

Anyone who uses this to disparage one of the most influential women of our lifetimes is an asshole.

She's an honorable woman who has worked her entire life for civil and worker's rights. She was trying to make sure those who spoke Spanish knew what the fuck was going on.

If you find yourself questioning her integrity or accomplishments look them up.

She's a smart, honorable woman whose opinion I and all of us should respect.

If you start questioning where she "went wrong", wondering how she could ever support HRC, maybe instead you should question your own beliefs. Maybe you should examine what right wing bullshit you're buying into.

Maybe it's you.

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Current location: Wisconsin
Member since: Sat Apr 14, 2007, 05:49 PM
Number of posts: 27,985
Latest Discussions»PeaceNikki's Journal