Uh Oh, Melania's speech was plagiarized

[Uncensored2008]

[
Have the nurse change your drool cup. It's overflowing all over you now.

Poor little hate drone, goes for wit, doesn't make the half-way mark...

 

[Faun]

Among we normal folk...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Soft porn model Mrs. Trump will never forgive her husband for putting her out there to be publicly humiliated and mocked on an international level.

Really?

Guess you didn't turn away from MSDNC last night.

Your fake scandal has fizzled.

The Trump family shined last night. You're not smart enough to grasp it. You're not a leftist because you're particularly bright, now are you?

Ivanaka ran to the LEFT of Crooked Hillary, and stole the womens issues. Yes, you Soros scum will lie, it's what you do, but her words will echo through the campaign.

 

[ChrisL]

Still doesn't compare to the lies and shady behavior of Ms. Clinton who IS a candidate. I'm going to assume you are a Hillary supporter.

And deflection. You've ceded the point. Trump's campaigned lied, lied stupidly, and is poorly organized. And this is the very, very best that Trump can do......by Trump's own claims.

These are the 'best people'. According to Trump anyway.

It's not deflection. It's comparing candidates. Your candidate loses in such a scenario.

It kinda sounds like you're trying to shift the topic somewhere else so you can avoid facing this one. It sounds very much like that.

Again, whatever you think of Hillary, whatever she did or didn't do, it has zero to do with this plagiarism kerfuffle. Not in any way involved, period. And yet ---- just to return to what the actual issue IS ---- the campaign manager Manafort (sp?) actually tried to blame her for it, while simultaneously denying "it" existed at all ............. and then when both of those were directly contradicted by the speechwriter McIver, completely bailed on both of his contradictory lies and "moved on".

That says a lot about honesty and the lack thereof. And it's systemic.

It has plenty to do with it for me. Like I said before, if I had to vote for either Hillary or Trump, I would choose Trump. Sorry, I can't abide by anti-rights politicians.

Then you probably can't vote for Clinton, but you absolutely positively cannot vote for Rump.

That's not rare in this season. There are a lot of people in that boat. But don't see one and ignore the other.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson, I think.

 

[Faun]

This thread is still about one person: Melania. Despite the relentless attempts to change the subject to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ben Ghazi, Ben Casey, Elizabeth Dole, Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth New Jersey, Bo Belinsky, Joe Biden, Barack O'bama, Deval Patrick, George Bush, George Bush, George Clinton, Kate Bush, Melania's body parts, "liberal" and "conservative" body parts, auto body parts, and the Kansas City Chiefs' ground game. That's all desperation in search of an exit ramp that does not exist. Because it would absolutely KILL these people to acknowledge that they were wrong and yes, their "team" actually did fuck up.

Even after that team already admitted to it, which is a head-exploder.

THAT --- that denialist insult to the world of reality --- is the only reason this thread goes on and on and on. If it had been handled honestly it would have been dead in the space of ten minutes.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying that some of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, compared to what an actual CANDIDATE has done. *smh* Melania Trump's speech is irrelevant to the future of our country.

um --- right. I keep agreeing that it's irrelevant. That's why I also keep pointing out that while the speech is indeed irrelevant, the abject denialist self-delusion is very relevant to what the actual candidate has done, and far more importantly to what his sheep are still doing. I just read several posts from Pothead who's STILL going on denying the reality that's documented right before his eyes. THAT's the issue here. Since we agree the speech itself is trivial, why try to steer back into it?

Well, that IS what the thread is about. I just don't really care if she plagiarized some words for her speech. For me, that has really nothing to do with the election and I doubt it is going to hurt the Trump campaign.

No one has claimed any importance regarding her speech. She's looking to be First Lady. Who really cares what she has to say? The fact that part of her speech was plagiarized is also no big deal.

What turned this from a 2 page thread to one approaching 2000 pages was the instinctive denials from the right in the face that part of her speech was clearly plagiarized.

Had folks on the right been capable of just sucking it up and admitting what was already glaringly obvious, this thread would have fizzled out in the wee hours of Tuesday morning.

But they can't. They were compelled to deny it no matter how obvious it was; while others tried to deflect to Democrats who have plagiarized. Hell, some sycophants are so delusional, they still deny it was plagiarism -- even though the Trump campaign admitted it.

As far as whether or not it hurts the Trump campaign, that remains to be seen. It certainly won't cost him any votes, but there is a possibility he violated campaign laws which prohibit the use of his corporation to support his campaign; which might be the case if an employee was paid by his corporation to work on his campaign.

And that is different in the way the left defends Hillary how?

In some ways, it's not. But this was a case where the right turned out to be wrong. Despite their vapid denials, the charges of plagiarism turned out to be true and the right ended up with egg on their face.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Among we normal folk...

 

[Faun]

Ivanaka ran to the LEFT of Crooked Hillary, and stole the womens issues.

And the right swallowed it whole.

Trump the RINO is dragging you rightards to the left and y'all are too stupid to figure it out.

 

[Pogo]

This thread is still about one person: Melania. Despite the relentless attempts to change the subject to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Ben Ghazi, Ben Casey, Elizabeth Dole, Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth New Jersey, Bo Belinsky, Joe Biden, Barack O'bama, Deval Patrick, George Bush, George Bush, George Clinton, Kate Bush, Melania's body parts, "liberal" and "conservative" body parts, auto body parts, and the Kansas City Chiefs' ground game. That's all desperation in search of an exit ramp that does not exist. Because it would absolutely KILL these people to acknowledge that they were wrong and yes, their "team" actually did fuck up.

Even after that team already admitted to it, which is a head-exploder.

THAT --- that denialist insult to the world of reality --- is the only reason this thread goes on and on and on. If it had been handled honestly it would have been dead in the space of ten minutes.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying that some of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, compared to what an actual CANDIDATE has done. *smh* Melania Trump's speech is irrelevant to the future of our country.

um --- right. I keep agreeing that it's irrelevant. That's why I also keep pointing out that while the speech is indeed irrelevant, the abject denialist self-delusion is very relevant to what the actual candidate has done, and far more importantly to what his sheep are still doing. I just read several posts from Pothead who's STILL going on denying the reality that's documented right before his eyes. THAT's the issue here. Since we agree the speech itself is trivial, why try to steer back into it?

Well, that IS what the thread is about. I just don't really care if she plagiarized some words for her speech. For me, that has really nothing to do with the election and I doubt it is going to hurt the Trump campaign.

Again, I don't know why this isn't getting through -- it isn't about that she plagiarized parts of a speech. That's established and long since played out. Melania herself has left the proverbial building. It's done.

RATHER, it's about the ongoing state of direct denial of reality and what it means when not only a political campaign but a mass of unwashed who are actually registered to vote, voluntarily exhibit that self-delusional psychosis as a thought process.

As I've noted before, if the campaign had simply said, 'oh sorry, we goofed, didn't vet that' and his sycophants accepted it as such, this topic would have been dead before midnight on the same night of the speech. But they don't have the integrity to do that. And that's the issue.

As for whether it "hurts the campaign" or not, that's irrelevant too. Not the point. The point is the deep pattern of dishonesty. Where that pattern leads is a separate question.

Well, the thread is about Melania's speech! What is the thread title?

In any thread or issue there are questions raised, which as long as they exist will fuel the discussion. Right?

In this one the original question was, "how did Michelle Obama's lines get into Melania's speech"?
That question has been answered. It's done, put to rest. And any uncertainties about details are insignificant.

But posing that question created other questions, to wit:

• How can you deny the lines are in there? (gives examples)
• How the hell is it "Hillary's fault"?
• How can it be Hillary's fault ---- or anybody's fault ---- and simultaneously "not exist"?

Those questions were obvious enough that the staffer McIver actually took responsibility.
But Manafort and the various posters here, presumably representing many more in the public ---- STILL refused to acknowledge it.

Therefore that question remains unresolved, and that unresolution births yet another question, to wit: How can you deny what's already been admitted?

That's unresolved too.

And that's why we're still here. Hope this helped.

 

[Faun]

Among we normal folk...

Yeah, sure, gramps,

... about that drool cup ...

 

[ChrisL]

I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying that some of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, compared to what an actual CANDIDATE has done. *smh* Melania Trump's speech is irrelevant to the future of our country.

um --- right. I keep agreeing that it's irrelevant. That's why I also keep pointing out that while the speech is indeed irrelevant, the abject denialist self-delusion is very relevant to what the actual candidate has done, and far more importantly to what his sheep are still doing. I just read several posts from Pothead who's STILL going on denying the reality that's documented right before his eyes. THAT's the issue here. Since we agree the speech itself is trivial, why try to steer back into it?

Well, that IS what the thread is about. I just don't really care if she plagiarized some words for her speech. For me, that has really nothing to do with the election and I doubt it is going to hurt the Trump campaign.

Again, I don't know why this isn't getting through -- it isn't about that she plagiarized parts of a speech. That's established and long since played out. Melania herself has left the proverbial building. It's done.

RATHER, it's about the ongoing state of direct denial of reality and what it means when not only a political campaign but a mass of unwashed who are actually registered to vote, voluntarily exhibit that self-delusional psychosis as a thought process.

As I've noted before, if the campaign had simply said, 'oh sorry, we goofed, didn't vet that' and his sycophants accepted it as such, this topic would have been dead before midnight on the same night of the speech. But they don't have the integrity to do that. And that's the issue.

As for whether it "hurts the campaign" or not, that's irrelevant too. Not the point. The point is the deep pattern of dishonesty. Where that pattern leads is a separate question.

Well, the thread is about Melania's speech! What is the thread title?

In any thread or issue there are questions raised, which as long as they exist will fuel the discussion. Right?

In this one the original question was, "how did Michelle Obama's lines get into Melania's speech"?
That question has been answered. It's done, put to rest. And any uncertainties about details are insignificant.

But posing that question created other questions, to wit:

• How can you deny the lines are in there? (gives examples)
• How the hell is it "Hillary's fault"?
• How can it be Hillary's fault ---- or anybody's fault ---- and simultaneously "not exist"?

Those questions were obvious enough that the staffer McIver actually took responsibility.
But Manafort and the various posters here, presumably representing many more in the public ---- STILL refused to acknowledge it.

Therefore that question remains unresolved, and that unresolution births yet another question, to wit: How can you deny what's already been admitted?

That's unresolved too.

And that's why we're still here. Hope this helped.

Well, I was giving my opinion on it. I'm on topic whether you like it or not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Yeah, sure, gramps,

... about that drool cup ...

No doubt I seem VERY old from your perspective of 13 years of life...

 

[ChrisL]

I'm not arguing that point. I'm saying that some of you are making a mountain out of a mole hill, compared to what an actual CANDIDATE has done. *smh* Melania Trump's speech is irrelevant to the future of our country.

um --- right. I keep agreeing that it's irrelevant. That's why I also keep pointing out that while the speech is indeed irrelevant, the abject denialist self-delusion is very relevant to what the actual candidate has done, and far more importantly to what his sheep are still doing. I just read several posts from Pothead who's STILL going on denying the reality that's documented right before his eyes. THAT's the issue here. Since we agree the speech itself is trivial, why try to steer back into it?

Well, that IS what the thread is about. I just don't really care if she plagiarized some words for her speech. For me, that has really nothing to do with the election and I doubt it is going to hurt the Trump campaign.

Again, I don't know why this isn't getting through -- it isn't about that she plagiarized parts of a speech. That's established and long since played out. Melania herself has left the proverbial building. It's done.

RATHER, it's about the ongoing state of direct denial of reality and what it means when not only a political campaign but a mass of unwashed who are actually registered to vote, voluntarily exhibit that self-delusional psychosis as a thought process.

As I've noted before, if the campaign had simply said, 'oh sorry, we goofed, didn't vet that' and his sycophants accepted it as such, this topic would have been dead before midnight on the same night of the speech. But they don't have the integrity to do that. And that's the issue.

As for whether it "hurts the campaign" or not, that's irrelevant too. Not the point. The point is the deep pattern of dishonesty. Where that pattern leads is a separate question.

Well, the thread is about Melania's speech! What is the thread title?

In any thread or issue there are questions raised, which as long as they exist will fuel the discussion. Right?

In this one the original question was, "how did Michelle Obama's lines get into Melania's speech"?
That question has been answered. It's done, put to rest. And any uncertainties about details are insignificant.

But posing that question created other questions, to wit:

• How can you deny the lines are in there? (gives examples)
• How the hell is it "Hillary's fault"?
• How can it be Hillary's fault ---- or anybody's fault ---- and simultaneously "not exist"?

Those questions were obvious enough that the staffer McIver actually took responsibility.
But Manafort and the various posters here, presumably representing many more in the public ---- STILL refused to acknowledge it.

Therefore that question remains unresolved, and that unresolution births yet another question, to wit: How can you deny what's already been admitted?

That's unresolved too.

And that's why we're still here. Hope this helped.

YOU asked me why I was still talking about Melania's speech? Lol. I don't think the right running to defend their candidate is all that shocking. Both sides do it.

 

[Camp]

Soft porn model Mrs. Trump will never forgive her husband for putting her out there to be publicly humiliated and mocked on an international level.

Really?

Guess you didn't turn away from MSDNC last night.

Your fake scandal has fizzled.

The Trump family shined last night. You're not smart enough to grasp it. You're not a leftist because you're particularly bright, now are you?

Ivanaka ran to the LEFT of Crooked Hillary, and stole the womens issues. Yes, you Soros scum will lie, it's what you do, but her words will echo through the campaign.

I actually researched the reactions and media coverage of Melania's plagiarism by seeing the effect in her home country and nearby eastern European nations as portrayed in regional media, both English speaking and Russian speaking.

Small countries take great pride when one of their celebrities gains international attention and fame. Melania has been such a celebrity since before ever meeting Trump. She has now become an embarrassment and is being mocked. The populations are not so different over there than they are here. When a celebrity messes up the media and people jump on it and turn it into a bigger scandal than it probably deserves, but a negative scandal all the same. Melania is being viewed in a whole different light now in the country she comes from, and it isn't a good light. A big story over there now is that she lied about her education besides the plagiarism story.

 

[Pogo]

um --- right. I keep agreeing that it's irrelevant. That's why I also keep pointing out that while the speech is indeed irrelevant, the abject denialist self-delusion is very relevant to what the actual candidate has done, and far more importantly to what his sheep are still doing. I just read several posts from Pothead who's STILL going on denying the reality that's documented right before his eyes. THAT's the issue here. Since we agree the speech itself is trivial, why try to steer back into it?

Well, that IS what the thread is about. I just don't really care if she plagiarized some words for her speech. For me, that has really nothing to do with the election and I doubt it is going to hurt the Trump campaign.

Again, I don't know why this isn't getting through -- it isn't about that she plagiarized parts of a speech. That's established and long since played out. Melania herself has left the proverbial building. It's done.

RATHER, it's about the ongoing state of direct denial of reality and what it means when not only a political campaign but a mass of unwashed who are actually registered to vote, voluntarily exhibit that self-delusional psychosis as a thought process.

As I've noted before, if the campaign had simply said, 'oh sorry, we goofed, didn't vet that' and his sycophants accepted it as such, this topic would have been dead before midnight on the same night of the speech. But they don't have the integrity to do that. And that's the issue.

As for whether it "hurts the campaign" or not, that's irrelevant too. Not the point. The point is the deep pattern of dishonesty. Where that pattern leads is a separate question.

Well, the thread is about Melania's speech! What is the thread title?

In any thread or issue there are questions raised, which as long as they exist will fuel the discussion. Right?

In this one the original question was, "how did Michelle Obama's lines get into Melania's speech"?
That question has been answered. It's done, put to rest. And any uncertainties about details are insignificant.

But posing that question created other questions, to wit:

• How can you deny the lines are in there? (gives examples)
• How the hell is it "Hillary's fault"?
• How can it be Hillary's fault ---- or anybody's fault ---- and simultaneously "not exist"?

Those questions were obvious enough that the staffer McIver actually took responsibility.
But Manafort and the various posters here, presumably representing many more in the public ---- STILL refused to acknowledge it.

Therefore that question remains unresolved, and that unresolution births yet another question, to wit: How can you deny what's already been admitted?

That's unresolved too.

And that's why we're still here. Hope this helped.

YOU asked me why I was still talking about Melania's speech? Lol. I don't think the right running to defend their candidate is all that shocking. Both sides do it.

Melania isn't a candidate.
But since the campaign behind her brought her to the stage, yeah those partisans will jump in to defend IT. IT after all is what's under the microscope here, not her. And again this is where the denialism of, in the main, the campaign manager and Rumpbot Nation come in. They can't acknowledge it even after their own staff has acknowledged it. That's a story in itself.

I still think she may be innocent of consciously plagiarizing. As I noted before, a bigly event speech like this is always rehearsed, repeatedly, in the hotel room, on the stage, with a coach managing phrases and cadence and eye movements and stage lighting. If she's the one who brought the original lines in, and then stood up for rehearsals reading those same lines ------ then it should have occurred to her during those rehearsals that the lines had not been rephrased and they were still there as raw material. At that point you go, "did this get worked yet?" and fix it. And it would have been a point of embarrassment for the speechwriter for almost hanging her out to dry with the plagiarized lines.

That's why I have my doubts about the story that she brought the lines in. She may have been entirely unaware of them. That leaves open the question of how they actually did get in there, but it also means she may have been in effect set up.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, that IS what the thread is about. I just don't really care if she plagiarized some words for her speech. For me, that has really nothing to do with the election and I doubt it is going to hurt the Trump campaign.

Again, I don't know why this isn't getting through -- it isn't about that she plagiarized parts of a speech. That's established and long since played out. Melania herself has left the proverbial building. It's done.

RATHER, it's about the ongoing state of direct denial of reality and what it means when not only a political campaign but a mass of unwashed who are actually registered to vote, voluntarily exhibit that self-delusional psychosis as a thought process.

As I've noted before, if the campaign had simply said, 'oh sorry, we goofed, didn't vet that' and his sycophants accepted it as such, this topic would have been dead before midnight on the same night of the speech. But they don't have the integrity to do that. And that's the issue.

As for whether it "hurts the campaign" or not, that's irrelevant too. Not the point. The point is the deep pattern of dishonesty. Where that pattern leads is a separate question.

Well, the thread is about Melania's speech! What is the thread title?

In any thread or issue there are questions raised, which as long as they exist will fuel the discussion. Right?

In this one the original question was, "how did Michelle Obama's lines get into Melania's speech"?
That question has been answered. It's done, put to rest. And any uncertainties about details are insignificant.

But posing that question created other questions, to wit:

• How can you deny the lines are in there? (gives examples)
• How the hell is it "Hillary's fault"?
• How can it be Hillary's fault ---- or anybody's fault ---- and simultaneously "not exist"?

Those questions were obvious enough that the staffer McIver actually took responsibility.
But Manafort and the various posters here, presumably representing many more in the public ---- STILL refused to acknowledge it.

Therefore that question remains unresolved, and that unresolution births yet another question, to wit: How can you deny what's already been admitted?

That's unresolved too.

And that's why we're still here. Hope this helped.

YOU asked me why I was still talking about Melania's speech? Lol. I don't think the right running to defend their candidate is all that shocking. Both sides do it.

Melania isn't a candidate.
But since the campaign behind her brought her to the stage, yeah those partisans will jump in to defend IT. IT after all is what's under the microscope here, not her. And again this is where the denialism of, in the main, the campaign manager and Rumpbot Nation come in. They can't acknowledge it even after their own staff has acknowledged it. That's a story in itself.

I still think she may be innocent of consciously plagiarizing. As I noted before, a bigly event speech like this is always rehearsed, repeatedly, in the hotel room, on the stage, with a coach managing phrases and cadence and eye movements and stage lighting. If she's the one who brought the original lines in, and then stood up for rehearsals reading those same lines ------ then it should have occurred to her during those rehearsals that the lines had not been rephrased and they were still there as raw material. At that point you go, "did this get worked yet?" and fix it. And it would have been a point of embarrassment for the speechwriter for almost hanging her out to dry with the plagiarized lines.

That's why I have my doubts about the story that she brought the lines in. She may have been entirely unaware of them. That leaves open the question of how they actually did get in there, but it also means she may have been in effect set up.

Yeah, I don't think she wrote that speech, at least not on her own.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I really don't care that Trump's wife lifted several paragraphs of her speech from Mrs. Obama's. It happens.

However.....................the Trump campaign should have said "oops, we goofed and didn't properly vet her speech" when they were caught, not deny it for several days, and then finally admit it when their feet were held to the fire.

But............they denied it. Like I said, I'm not concerned with Mrs. Trump, but if Donald is going to lie in his campaign about something so inconsequential rather than admit a mistake, what else is he willing to lie about?

If you will lie for something small, you will lie for something big.

 

[oreo]

 

[TemplarKormac]

Skanky White Trash

Fake tits. Fake speech. Fake degree. Fake book. Fake wealth. Fake university.
​

I thought the Wasilla Hillbillies were bad enough - but holy shit this is worse...

LOL.

Now you have zero right to be angry at Trump about his comments. Let this post be out there for all to see.

 

[ogibillm]

Skanky White Trash

Fake tits. Fake speech. Fake degree. Fake book. Fake wealth. Fake university.
​

I thought the Wasilla Hillbillies were bad enough - but holy shit this is worse...

LOL.

Now you have zero right to be angry at Trump about his comments. Let this post be out there for all to see.

i keep looking in that post but I'm not seeing any bragging about sexual assault... can you point it out?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Skanky White Trash

Fake tits. Fake speech. Fake degree. Fake book. Fake wealth. Fake university.
​

I thought the Wasilla Hillbillies were bad enough - but holy shit this is worse...

LOL.

Now you have zero right to be angry at Trump about his comments. Let this post be out there for all to see.

i keep looking in that post but I'm not seeing any bragging about sexual assault... can you point it out?

Nothing like that. Such demeaning terminology towards a woman. Hatred and indifference to women can manifest itself in many ways. Lakhota's post is one of them. Behold the misogynist she is.