Yeah, what a joke. Sean Hannity did the same thing on his radio program today. Politicians of the same political party often use the same speech writers and deliberately use the same words and phrases to express and reinforce a meme. That's why Republicans, from the highest official to the lowest Republican man on the street use the same words and same phrases when talking about issues. That's not plagiarism. Yeah, what a Joke. But the joke is on you. Hannity also played soundbites from some of Obama's speeches in which Obama used some famous quotations from FDR and Martin Luther King alleging Obama plagiarized FDR and King. I think everyone in the country over the age of 10 knows King's famous "I Have a Dream Speech" and FDR's "We have Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself" quotations. Obama never misrepresented those quotations as his. Contrary to Hannity's assertions Obama didn't plagiarize FDR or Martin Luther King.
It's quite clear Obama plagiarized part of his speech by framing FDR and MLK in the same was as Deval Patrick. Not to mention Edwards. Not that it matters, who cares what some political servant reads off a teleprompter that was written by someone else? Anyway, he was a Senator whereas Trump's wife is just that. Anyone objective would suggest both then Senator Obama and Trump's wife were 'inspired' by the same political hacks.
Quote of the Day Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "I'm not sure what's more peculiar: watching the Republican National Committee's spokesperson quoting 'My Little Pony' on national television or watching him pretend not to understand what 'plagiarism' means. ―Steve Benen↱ Meanwhile, the one and only Katrina Pierson huffed, "This concept that Michelle Obama invented the English language is absurd". "There was no indication," Mr. Benen retorted, "she was kidding." Once upon a time I actually did respect the basic principle of being a Republican. All that stuff about how we might disagree but we're still on the same side, that sort of thing. I wish it was true. And while Katrina Pierson is, well, Katrina Pierson, neither is she unique. Nor particularly uncommon, when you get right down to it. It's not just the idea of a straw man, but, rather, the futility of it: "This concept that Michelle Obama invented the English language is absurd"? What does that even mean? Okay, the thing is that I still can't wrap my head around a process I've apparently witnessed in my lifetime, but essentially the cynical hyperbole has become the cynical argument has become the cynical belief has sublimated into a foundational presupposition. That is, in my youth one of the arguments was a wife's right to refuse sexual intercourse. It's not the end of the world that she can say no. We sure as hell acted like it was, though. Generally speaking, I don't think American men are over it, yet. But that's the thing. When they shouted about the decay of American society, it sounded, looked, and felt like apoplectic hyperbole. By the time we get to purity balls, Quiverfull, the television baby factory family, and even kicking a nine year-old girl out of school for confusing boys by not being properly girly enough―look, they're not in an apoplectic rage. This is antisocial behavior, near to rupture. That somebody didn't invent or doesn't own something has always been recognizable as stupid hyperbole. There are variations on the theme littered in Sciforums' history. It's a cheap excuse, a means of ducking a real problem by complaining about the injustice of being expected to answer for wrongness. Let us consider: While it often feels empowering to have someone "like me", as such, in the Oval Office, look at what that gets the crowd most invested in who they would rather have a beer with. George W. Bush? Sarah Palin? Now we're down to Donald Trump? Because, apparently, Scott Walker was too fucking smart and elitist? The comparison of the Trump phenomenon to professional wrestling is a reasonably apt simile, but I think we might be seeing a different phenomenon. This is the candidate of the internet troll. We've been seeing it come further and further forward; neoconservative Michael Lind↱ declared the death of intellectual conservatism in 1995, and while it's always been a morbidly attractive thesis―a depressing explanation with strong potential for being correct―it seems more and more evident that something happened to Republicans between the end of the Reagan and Clinton presidencies. And this is its apex, for all time we might hope. It really was brilliant marketing; the short-term benefits were astounding. That much I'll grant them. But this is what they made with it. We've heard it coming in bits and pieces. Rising screech and wail as they tumbled embarrassingly and brutally through their failure. Ever-increasing desperation as they return to the well of misogyny. And that's the thing with Akin in 2012. Once upon a time, Republicans and conservatives knew better than to speak the Willke Lie aloud in public. Just like once upon a time they knew better than to skip the part about patient health in favor of crowing about ending abortion in their state. Just like once upon a time they knew better than come right out and say it's about throwing the election. "Diamond" Joe Quimby: "Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?" Louder, certes. Dumber? Inarguably. It's part of the reason it stands out to my perception, in such sharp relief: The driving argument behind conservative politics today is the same argument we heard against music and books thirty years ago. It is inevitable, then, that we might wonder if the reason for this is not its sterling record of success―(cough! hack! wheeze!)―but, rather, because that is as complicated as they can manage: Your rights, your basic validity, ends when and where I say so. Thus: Are they merely stubborn, and refusing to acknowledge that equality does not mean one is superior to the other, or simply too stupid to comprehend? The entire conservative politic right now relies on fundamental invalidation of others; perhaps it is not so much disrespect as much as basic inability to comprehend the fact that these other people are, indeed, real. That is, are they cruel, or genuinely too stupid to understand? The Donald Trump campaign resembles a cadre of internet trolls. This makes perfect sense in the basic marketing context. The big risk is how the market will respond to concerns about the propriety of such conduct in a presidential context, and as we see, Republican voters have enthusiastically and pretty much overwhelmingly backed the latest lowering of the bar. And, really, think of a contradiction that gets passed over for, well, actually rather important reasons. But, you know, normally when we recall the Republican abuse of the word "unprecedented", and invoke those funny, racist times they went all Griffith on Obama and complained about his lack of a jacket, or feet on the desk, we think of the blatant racism. But there's also another question: Dignity and decorum of office. Democratic supporters might offer the obvious example: Let's complain about Obama's unprecedented indignity in putting his feet on his desk just like his predecessor but, you know, that part where the predecessor told a bunch of lies to land the country in one of the worst-executed war crimes in world history just isn't a big deal, and besides, both sides do it. Even still, that's a bit complicated for people who can't understand basic concepts like the word equal. What we're dealing with is a complaint about the dignity of the office. Which, in turn, never really meant a damn thing to them: They're backing Donald Trump. They're trolls. And this is their moment. And what a show↱, indeed. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Team Trump falls in a ditch, but keeps digging". msnbc. 19 July 2016. msnbc.com. 19 July 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2arJdka Lind, Michael. "Why Intellectual Conservatism Died". Dissent. Winter, 1995. DissentMagazine.org. 19 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2aaQc1D
Apparently that's not the only problem they face, Melania's bio published by the RNC might be faked. There is no evidence she earned a degree. https://www.google.com/search?clien...erp..1.5.620...0j35i39j0i131j0i3.NH-IC9bG8Fg#
Aye↑. That's not going well. So ... should we set a countdown to complaints of misogyny? And should we open a pool on how close or far their argument gets to making the point? Because, let's face it, there's going to be misogyny. But we might also recall 2008, when expecting Sarah Palin to have a clue was denounced as misogynistic.
Hysterical, isn't it? Now news that Trump's campaign added in the plagiarised portions after the speechwriter hired to do her speech had handed his draft in. Trump’s campaign maintained on Tuesday that Melania’s speech was not plagiarized, however Jackson reported the GOP nominee’s wife added the cribbed bits after accomplished speechwriter Matt Scully — hired to write the speech — turned in his draft. The speechwriters were apparently approached a while ago to write her speech. They handed it in and it appears as though either Melania or someone from Trump's campaign altered it and added in Michelle Obama's speech. I don't think anyone could make up this level of lunacy if they tried. My favourite bit was Pierson trying to explain it. I laughed so hard, my side hurt. This is while they deny she even plagiarised. Not to mention quoting My lil pony. They should have just come out and admitted it and frankly, it would have gone away. This, however, is just going to drag her humiliation out further. She apparently hasn't been seen in public since.
To copy from one person is plagiarism. To copy from many people is research. To copy from no one is madness.
It isn't plagiarism when you are quoting well-known passages or phrases from famous speeches. The MLK and FDR references were just that, references. And everyone knows it. He did apparently plagiarize Deval but they aren't opponents. Writers do use the work of other writers all the time. But you don't plagiarize "the enemy" and specially claim it as your own. And for all we know, Deval and Obama may have used the same writer. What makes Melania important is that she's Trumps number one character witness. Obviously she is willing to tell blatant lies so her use as a character reference is gone. She is no more credible than Trump.
Who really cares? I surely do not. The media seems to only want to pick out things that they think will show that Trump isn't a very good leader by showing something his wife did.
No, they are showing that Melania is dishonest and useless as a character witness. Trump has made a campaign slogan out of calling Hillary a liar while his own wife is clearly a liar. The worst of it is that Trump himself tells at least dozen lies every speech and his supporters don't care. But when Melania insists that he's such a good man, we now know it means nothing. They are both liars.
Think of it this way.. She had to lie and steal something from someone else, to make her husband sound good, not to mention herself. Is it because she or the campaign speechwriters were unable to come up with something themselves? They weren't able to describe their values, sense of honour and integrity without stealing from someone else to do it? This plagiarism and the whole rick roll thing in her speech shows incompetence. He is in the running to lead the country and they do something like this, and then lie through their teeth about it, deny it, admit it, deny it again, admit it again - rinse and repeat. One was on one station saying she only plagiarised 7% while another one from his campaign was on another network denying she had done it at all. This was just a speech. This was his campaign introducing her to the US and to the world to get her to make her husband look like a human being, like a decent human being. And they couldn't even double check the speech or run it to make sure it didn't contain plagiarised material? It shows complete disarray. That is why Trump looks bad. That is why his campaign looks bad. And instead of admitting a 'mistake', for example, they doubled down, denied it and frankly, went on a carnival ride of denial and bizarre explanations that is a direct contradiction of the statement or comments made just before each one. It was sheer incompetence. Generally, when we hear about folksy candidates like Trump, George W. Bush or even Ronald Reagan, we’re told not to worry because they’ll hire wise old men — policy wonks and political insiders to make key decisions about topics such as our nuclear triad, which, by the way, Trump was unaware of as recently as December. There’s no evidence whatsoever that Trump is capable of hiring competent staffers. In the past, Trump hired Dr. Ben Carson to spearhead his vice presidential search team, even though Carson nose-dived his own campaign with bizarre rants including one in which he stabbed someone as a kid, and another in which he claimed to have aided a robbery at a “Popeye’s organization.” There’s Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former senior adviser, who manhandled a female reporter and was eventually fired because he wanted to leak the name of a vice presidential contender — weeks after Carson accidentally did the same. And now, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Trump hired a writing staff that deliberately (or accidentally) sabotaged Trump’s ownwife. How, in any universe, is this acceptable? The question, therefore, needs to be asked: if Trump can’t hire people to successfully pen innocuous remarks for his wife, how can we expect him to hire people to advise him on issues such as ISIS or job creation or the climate crisis? Clearly we can’t. Now consider something else, it is usual for people who work in the inner group of the campaign to then go on to work for the President if he gets elected. People like Jon Favreau, who was Obama's speechwriter (or one of them) worked on his campaign and then went on to work as one of his team of speechwriters after he was elected. Do you really think that the glaring incompetence of Trump's campaign staff is capable of working in the West Wing of the White House and helping Trump mold and shape policy in his capacity as President? Because at the moment, they are like something out of the Benny Hill show. His campaign is a freak show and this convention just made it into an even bigger freak show. The reason for that is simple, they are all 'yes men'. And these are some of the people who are going to be working in the White House along el Donald? The point is that no one is having to make Trump or his campaign look bad. Why? Because Trump and his own campaign is doing a better job than anyone else would ever dream of doing.
The Trump campaign has now explained that Melania likes Michelle Obama and told her speech writer that she wanted to use portions of Michelle Obama's speech in her speech, and the whole affair was just a big misunderstanding, a simple innocent mistake. That's how Michelle's speech found its way into Melania's speech. Melania's speech writer has offered her resignation, but it has been refused. Apparently Melania's speech writer didn't know those pieces were lifted from Michelle Obama's speech, or so the story goes. I find it interesting that Trump and all of his followers love to call others liars e.g. Hillary Clinton, but hey, when it comes to their lies, who cares? They certainly don't. Unfortunately for Trump, others outside his cult following, do care. Before Trump and his followers complain about the alleged dishonesty of others they need to take a long and serious look at themselves. Hypocrisy is alive and well in the Trump camp. Here is the other interesting thing, Republicans hate Obama. How will Republicans react when they discover Melania admires Obama's wife, the woman who sleeps with the Devil incarnate? How will they rationalize that? LOL... Trump's convention was suppose to be a big PR event, it's 4 days of free advertising. It was suppose to inspire and excite people. Instead, Trump has wasted 3 of those 4 days on this scandal.
Brief Notes In which case it's called "messaging". Cynical, yes, but such are American politics. • • • One of the odd things about claims against "the media" is that I can't ever figure people's standards when they say such things. Scrutinizing candidate spousees is hardly new. Holding the candidates to account is hardly new. Donald Trump thinks his wife is the best wife. Melania Trump did what a Republican wife is supposed to do: Look pretty and say nice things about her husband. Unfortunately, Team Trump apparently found a way to bungle this, too. Between Kitty Dukakis' alcoholism and Melania Trump's plagiarism, I would point out we need not violate custom and proper health in order to pile the bricks on the plagiarist. And, by comparison, the greatest damage has been done by the Trump campaign. • • • Aye. In terms of political ritual, this is actually supposed to be a pretty straightforward, simple affair. Over at Salon, Cesca↱ linked to Gauthier↱, who was so breathless he forgot the part when bending over backwards to defend Melania meant driving a stake through her heart. But Gauthier also links out to Jordan Sargent↱ of Gawker, who in turn actually manages a pretty strong analysis of the general situation while prescribing a complicated conspiracy theory blaming Corey Lewandowski. It's worth noting because it's a sympathetic take; instead of rickrolling us, Melania Trump got rickrolled. The fun thing about the rest of the conspiracy theory is that it is just complicated enough to automatically doubt, but also takes place in a context describing behaviors ranging between pretending to be a nonexistent spokesperson, that Trump might brag about his penis, to alleged mob ties requiring complex conspiracies to carry out in order to achieve Trump's business successes. And this campaign is about as two-dimenisonal and trollish as possible. Furthermore, even in more normal politicking, complicated neurotic cabals are hardly unknown. I'm not ready to blame anyone in particular; I very nearly don't care whose fault it is. (Superstition: If I genuinely don't care, something about the final resolution will advise me clearly that I should have given a damn; the anti-prophet is one of political paranoias, if not outright the foremost.) More relevant to the moment is the qeuestion reasonably sketched in the last three paragraphs of your post. And perhaps the more pressing question for these United States at large is what, exactly, is going on in our society and political culture that one side of our generally two-party system is no longer capable of participating in any constructive manner. There is some chatter in this thread (see #19-20↑) about the potential for Trump's campaign being deliberately awful. This notion has boggled me pretty much from the outset (1↗, 2↗, 3↗, 4↗, 5↗, 6↗, 7↗). There are also blog versions↱, though I'll note the most recent of those, regarding Gingrich, is now obsolete for the selection of Pence as running mate. But one of them, written last month↱, pretty much sums up the conundrum I've encountered with this question of deliberation: Okay, look, the thing I still can't figure out about the phantom candidate conspiracy theory is why. Still, though, it occurs to wonder at the actual reason Donald Trump has every appearance of trying to destroy the Republican Party. The bizarre bits and pieces we hear about Chris Christie seem nearly emblematic. Whatever hell the New Jersey governor's reputation had already discovered one wonders at the penance of such humiliation in Donald Trump's shadow. That the Republican nominee apparent is so vicious is beyond doubt, but what does Mr. Christie think he's doing? Or Republicans, for that matter? The RNC, many congressional Republicans, and various prominent voices in the conservative discourse seemed to shrug and roll, shuffling in line behind their party's primary winner. And then what happened? Look at what Donald Trump is doing to conservatives. This is astounding. This is unimaginable. This is your Republican Party, and if it wasn't for the fact that they were Republicans we probably ought to pity them right about now. I mean, sure, for a lot of the rest of us our diverse grievances against and disputes with Donald Trump are pretty clear, but what the hell did the GOP do to piss him off this badly?____________________ Notes: Cesca, Bob. "Melania's speech mess: Why you shouldn't rule out that it was an inside job". Salon. 20 July 2016. Salon.com. 20 July 2016. http://bit.ly/29WgXFu Gauthier, Brendan. "Breaking: Plagiarized portions of Melania Trump's RNC speech not in speechwriter's draft, NBC reports". Salon. 19 July 2016. Salon.com. 20 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2abJb3S Sargent, Jordan. "A Theory: Donald Trump's Ex-Campaign Manager Deliberately Sabotaged Melania Trump". Black Bag. 19 July 2016. BlackBag.Gawker.com. 20 July 2016. http://bit.ly/29P8Bit
Poor Meredith McIver, she must feel like s--t. Not only does she have terrible taste in clothing, but she has gotten lazy. If I really cared, I'd probably read the 3 books she co-authored/ghost wrote with/for Donald(looking for entertaining gaffs). But, frankly my dear, I fear that the game isn't worth the candle. I'd rather watch the slow striptease and blossoming of pretty women in science fiction flicks(sometimes, it's better without the sound). (When is the new guardians of the galaxy due out?)
Culprit Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! About forty minutes ago, or so: A speechwriter for Donald Trump's business took the blame for apparent plagiarism in Melania Trump's convention speech, saying she offered to resign over the error but was asked to stay by Mr. Trump. Meredith McIver is a staff writer for Trump's private company, not his presidential campaign, and issued her statement on Trump Organization letterhead. McIver twice called the inclusion of language from Michelle Obama's 2008 speech "my mistake," seemingly contradicting the campaign's earlier insistence that no significant plagiarism occurred. (Sarlin↱)____________________ Notes: Sarlin, Benji. "Staff Writer Takes Blame for 'Mistakes' in Melania Trump RNC Speech". NBC News. 20 July 2016. NBCNews.com. 20 July 2016. http://nbcnews.to/29VsKD0 (Update: Damn. Too late.)
' Once upon a time I was a Republican; and a highly dedicated one at that. I agree that things have changed. Not only has the Republican economic platform fundamentally failed - free markets cannot be trusted to regulate themselves - but Carl Rove drove the party from Reagan's big tent, to exclusionary rather than inclusionary tactics - you only need to win by one vote. Combine with that the influence of right-wing talk radio, Fox and its army of nuts like Glenn Beck, and slowly there was apparently an insurgence of less educated people who rejected the right-wing intelligentsia. Combine that with the daily brain washing provided by 24-hour cable, the election of a black man as President which infuriated every racist in the country, lost ground on issues of personal liberty like gay marriage, and the influence of social media that allows people of like ideologies to group and isolate themselves, and you have the core of the new Republican Party. Even the "Christian" right, which was merged with Wall Street to elect Reagan and create the party of the 80s to about 2000, is yielding its moral ground and alleged message of love, to Trump's message of nutty conspiracy theories, hate, fear, murder, and torture. Here is one big problem: Most people would rather be entertained, made angry, their fears and hatred fed, and offered simple solutions, than be informed and try to understand the true complexities of the world. Quality news sources are disappearing because more and more people don't want to use them. We blame the news services for rushing inaccurate stories and sloppy journalism, but the real blame rests with the viewers who generate the ratings and don't really care if the information is accurate or not. A friend was asking why no one simply reports the news. I said, there are a few. For one, PBS has maintained relatively high standards. His response was that PBS is too boring.
Update: (sigh) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That↑ didn't take long. Barry Deutsch↱ makes the point: I'm all for laughing at Melania Trump (or her speechwriters) plagiarizing Michelle Trump's speech, but of course, there are a lot of awful people who have to ruin the fun with disgusting bigotry. Aaaargh. GET OFF MY SIDE MISOGYNISTIC ASSHOLES! Even if you don't like Melania Trump, that's no excuse. Attacks like these don't just hurt the target; they hurt women, and immigrants, and whores. And mail order brides, for that matter. These people don't deserve bigotry and free-floating contempt just because people don't like Donald Trump. That the misogyny is inevitable is not any manner of comfort. ____________________ Notes: Deutsch, Barry. "Bigots Attack Melania Trump With Misogynistic, Anti-Immigrant, Whorephobic Comments". Alas! a Blog. 20 July 2016. AmpToons.com. 29 July 2016. http://amptoons.com/blog/?p=22055
