Home | About | Donate

On Behalf of Women, Michelle Obama Tears Into Trump: 'Enough Is Enough'


On Behalf of Women, Michelle Obama Tears Into Trump: 'Enough Is Enough'

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

In an impassioned and personal speech in New Hampshire on Thursday, First Lady Michelle Obama ripped into Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, denouncing his treatment of women as "disgraceful" and "intolerable."

"I think we can all agree that this has been a rough week in an already rough election," Obama said at a Hillary Clinton campaign event at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester.


I can't put my finger on why, but I do not like this lady.


Bread and circuses:


Evolution of the Individual

The individual is the most basic unit of ruling class society. One cannot divide society further without damaging either. The Supreme Executive, Our ruling class guiding spirit, hates and needs this creature. The Great Institution hates the inherent threat the individual poses to its regime, and yet, it is made up of them. The individual is the substance of both the ruling class and its masses. Without the individual the Supreme Executive, like other gods, would not exist.

The individual we know today is a relatively new development. Early human consciousness saw itself as part of a whole. They were “connected” to each other and all things. The early ancients’ intimacy with nature meant there was no separation of the individual from their natural world. Traces of this exist in today’s religions, especially in the East.

When the ruling class came along it appropriated these ideas. Our ruling class ancestors turned nature worship into god worship. Then the ruling class tore god away from nature and turned it into a moral ideological cloak for itself. The old notion of the individual being at one with the cosmos morphed into the feudal convention that tied serfs to the land — it was their place in God’s world.

The totality of the cosmos and mother nature were turned into authoritarian, all powerful gods. These gods, in turn, supposedly “created” each creature in their proper place. Various caste systems solidified individuals in their life station. Sons followed fathers, while women mostly didn’t matter and were kept as servants. Thus the individual came to be understood as male.


" We are Earth People on a spiritual journey to the stars. Our quest , our Earth walk , is to look within , to know who we are , to see that we are connected to all things, that there is no separation , only in the mind . " Lakota Seer


"As time went on, the merchants and guild artisans grew in numbers and power. They began to shrug off the burdensome yoke imposed on them by the nobles and clergy.
The first intellectuals awoke, bringing new ideas into daylight.
A new class was born, the Bourgeoisie.
They lead Revolutions against kings and church, leading to the birth of a 'new system of production' called Capitalism."


How about what Jill Stein has to say about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? Who appointed Michelle Obama as the official spokes person for women?


Hillary and her plutocratic friends.


It is called being the First Lady. You get a few privileges here and there.


I can't put my finger on it. Even though I am a Green Party member, but I do like this First Lady.


So anytime Michelle Obama has something to say about a presidential candidate, Common Dreams should write an article about it? All the while pretty much ignoring a progressive candidate like Jill Stein?


Like Bob Dylan once said "I don't believe you," you know perfectly well why you like her.


These type of charges got Herman Cain to drop out of the Republican primary last time around but Trump is still standing and fighting. Of course he is already the nominee. The Republicans did a poor job in vetting this guy. He could lose both the Senate and House for them. He could even cost the conservatives control of the Republican Party. The ramifications may be profound.


A Sexual Predator versus A Predatory Crony Capitalist and Warmonger

As Putin recently remarked, "Can't the US find better candidates?"


I may get some flack here. But I went and read what Trump actually said.

I didn't read it that he was bragging he could assault women. He didn't say, "I grab them by the p**** when they don't want it." He said, "When you are a star they let you do it. You can do anything, grab them by the p****, you can do anything."

It is clear the big male jerk buffoon was not saying he assaults women and gets away with it. He was saying that the women he interacts with let him have sex with them because he's a star. But he also pointed out earlier in the tape that that didn't work with one woman he wanted to have sex with, she said no and he had to respect that.

I don't like Trump. I don't like this attitude towards women. I wouldn't vote for him for other reasons even if he had good attitudes towards women.

But the Democratic apparatchik machine is making this into something it wasn't and the entire media is going along with it. They are pushing the buttons of women who demand respect all in order to corral us to support Hillary Clinton who has no respect for women if they are in Third Countries that get in the way of her Neo-Liberal and Neo-Con aspirations.

I am ashamed of Michelle Obama jumping on this band wagon. Does she not know what Trump really said and she's deluded by the propaganda or is she part of the propaganda machine feigning offense and distorting the tape in order to ratchet up support for the Queen of Chaos?

I have no respect for Michelle Obama. She is a silent partner supporting the horrors of her husband's presidency in expanding drilling, expanding wars, making it legal to kill and detain Americans without due process, playing brinksmanship with Russia, working to destroy the economy for the 99% with the TPP, trying to cut Social Security, and being the Deporter in Chief.

I suspect this post might be flagged and removed. Oh well.

I'll not be shepherded into voting for Clinton by this. I'll vote for Dr. Jill Stein and the future.


Can we not pause for a minute, and consider sexual abuse victims? (Say she is doing it politically, well yes people, everything one does in public life is arguably a political statement.) All of this in the news brings back many painful memories. When a person is raped, their entire family are also victims. The PTSD can last a lifetime.

My Aunt, who was raped by a family member as a teenager, told me the following when she was about 60--- before PTSD was even a common term.
(She was on an Alaskan cruise trip--yes--money does not cure rape PTSD).
"It was night. I was out looking over the rail, into the black abyss. I thought it would be so easy to jump right then and it would all be over."

All of us know someone who has been raped. One who has been sexually assaulted. This description below is telling, and I don't think MO pulled it out of midair, her ass, or any other thing but her own experience.

"It's like that sick, sinking feeling you get when you're walking down
the street minding your own business and some guy yells out vulgar words
about your body. Or when you see that guy at work that stands just a little too close, stares a little too long, and makes you feel uncomfortable in your own skin."

I would say, if you are not empathetic to rape and sexual abuse victims, if your world has not been permanently rocked by this atrocity --- you have no reasonable cause to open your fucking mouth about sexual abuse and rape.


The Citizens can, but their choice gets Sanders'd.


Too many of us are afraid to speak the truth on this one. It has the danger of making us look like we excuse sexual assault or don't disapprove of the horrid attitude that Trump has towards women.

I know. I felt it too and was very apprehensive about writing what I wrote. I despise powerful men using their position to seduce vulnerable women. It's not like I approve of what Trump really said. But it wasn't sexual assault he was bragging about anymore than Bill Clinton using his powerful position to have an affair with a vulnerable intern was sexual assault. It was inappropriate and makes me despise him.

But it is also disgusting that the Democratic Propaganda Machine is painting Trump as a rapist while they excused Clinton as a victim of a right wing conspiracy for doing exactly what Trump bragged about but doing it with a cigar.


He didn't say, "I grab them by the p**** when they don't want it." He
said, "When you are a star they let you do it. You can do anything,
grab them by the p****, you can do anything."

Let me explain grammatically the only interpretations logically possible to this statement.

First the actual quote is:
Trump: "When you are a star they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush: says something interjecting
Trump: "Grab them by the pussy."

First, it is present tense verb. Present tense verb indicates a present action or a state of being.
If I say, "I play guitar." it is used as a "state of being" description. It implies, or is understood as, "I have, do now, and will continue to play guitar."
Interpreted this way, the sentence is a fragment (missing subject) but complete with the "understood I" as subject, thus "(I) grab them by the pussy." says what he did, does, and continues to do ,a state of being.

The only plausible other interpretation is an understood "you" and it is an instructional, declarative statement, "You grab them by the pussy." (Here "you" can also mean "anyone")

So would we you prefer to say this?
A. He is saying that he grabs pussy, as a common practice, because he is a star and can "get away with it"
B. He is telling Bush or "anyone" or "any guy" to "grab them by the pussy.

So he is either describing his own sexual assault, or he is telling other(s) to commit a sexual assault, or even sexual battery. Is one any better, more morally just than the other?


During the GOP coup that ousted California Governor Gray Davis in 2003, the Democratic Party could have aired Arnold the Terminator's abuse of women which was later confirmed to be as bad as Trump's.

I guess its no surprise the Party let Davis go down without a fight seeing how he was on the verge of signing single payer medical insurance into law in California that would have morphed into national single payer, thereby costing the Democratic Party a lot of lost corporate cash.


Maybe because we don't think it's the truth. Let's look at what he said just before your quote:

Let's be clear, he's talking about a woman he hasn't met, and saying that he just might not be able to control himself and he'll start kissing her. He doesn't even wait, presumably for consent.

That's assault right there.

Then, women come forward saying he did exactly what he claims he does, saying that he's telling the truth. Yet somehow, it's not assault?

He doesn't get to define consent. Maybe he really believes that "they" let him do it, but it's really not his call, is it? Of course not.

You'd have to be a yoga master to twist things enough to use this to attack Democrats, but somehow you manage to do it. It's astonishing, really.