Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread

[Seriously?]

Lols Vox. Might as well be coming directly from the DNC.

[Seriously?]

Lols Vox. Might as well be coming directly from the DNC.

Do you refute the content of the article?

Of course I do. For starters, it's not even close to word-for-word.

The concepts themselves? They are hardly novel in a political speech. I am sure, if you did enough research, you can see that Michelle "plagiarized" those two graphs from some other politician or politician's wife.

I challenge you to tell me that you've never heard those words come out of a politician's mouth other than Michelle Obama or Melania Trump before. Give me a break. This is beyond a joke.

It's good to see all you eager Democrats and "Republicans" on here on the attack though. Your friends at Vox are imploring you to do so....

[Seriously?]

Vox isnt alone in noticing this...

NYT: Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s 2008 Address

LATimes: Melania Trump's RNC speech is strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech


MSNBC: Melania Trump speech strikingly similar to Michelle Obama 2008

Politico: Melania Trump's prime-time speech was strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's

There is more and it is growing. This is going to be a thing for sure.
 

Vox, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and Politico. So the left-wing press is on the attack, likely with marching orders from the DNC. I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

[Seriously?]

Lols Vox. Might as well be coming directly from the DNC.

Do you refute the content of the article?

Of course I do. For starters, it's not even close to word-for-word.

The concepts themselves? They are hardly novel in a political speech. I am sure, if you did enough research, you can see that Michelle "plagiarized" those two graphs from some other politician or politician's wife.

I challenge you to tell me that you've never heard those words come out of a politician's mouth other than Michelle Obama or Melania Trump before. Give me a break. This is beyond a joke.

It's good to see all you eager Democrats and "Republicans" on here on the attack though.

Did you, by chance, do some speech writing for Biden circa 88?

Why do you think I'd EVER do any speechwriting for a Democrat? Hell no.

But you know what? The next FLOTUS used similar language in a speech made by the previous FLOTUS, which is pretty much your typical "we worked hard" and canned optimism for the next generation speech that 99% of all politicians give.

The scandal!

It's time to gloat and disqualify Trump!

Like this will ever actually either: a) matter to Joe Six Pack voter or b) change the dynamic of the race.

You red avatars and your "blue" friends have fun though.

[Seriously?]

Vox isnt alone in noticing this...

NYT: Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s 2008 Address

LATimes: Melania Trump's RNC speech is strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech


MSNBC: Melania Trump speech strikingly similar to Michelle Obama 2008

Politico: Melania Trump's prime-time speech was strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's

There is more and it is growing. This is going to be a thing for sure.
 

Vox, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and Politico. So the left-wing press is on the attack, likely with marching orders from the DNC. I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

You should check your hat. The tin foil might be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

Tin foil, hardly. The reputation of Vox, the New York Times, the LA Times, MSNBC and Politico as left-wing advocates is pretty well established.

[Seriously?]

Vox isnt alone in noticing this...

NYT: Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s 2008 Address

LATimes: Melania Trump's RNC speech is strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech


MSNBC: Melania Trump speech strikingly similar to Michelle Obama 2008

Politico: Melania Trump's prime-time speech was strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's

There is more and it is growing. This is going to be a thing for sure.
 

Vox, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and Politico. So the left-wing press is on the attack, likely with marching orders from the DNC. I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

You should check your hat. The tin foil might be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

Tin foil, hardly. The reputation of Vox, the New York Times, the LA Times, MSNBC and Politico as left-wing advocates is pretty well established.

Give it a rest, how delusional can you be?

Your red roots are showing, blue avatar.

The core audience of MSNBC are Republicans, right? There's definitely no slanted coverage on that network. The New York Times, too, right?

Give me a break. This nonsense will be out of the news cycle as quickly as it came into it.

Again, I challenge any of you to admit that this "I am American, I was taught to work hard, etc." meme hasn't been used by someone other than Michelle Obama or Melania Trump. I've yet to hear any single one of you state otherwise.

It's almost like your stock, political 101 graphs when talking about American values.

[Seriously?]

Vox isnt alone in noticing this...

NYT: Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s 2008 Address

LATimes: Melania Trump's RNC speech is strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech


MSNBC: Melania Trump speech strikingly similar to Michelle Obama 2008

Politico: Melania Trump's prime-time speech was strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's

There is more and it is growing. This is going to be a thing for sure.
 

Vox, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and Politico. So the left-wing press is on the attack, likely with marching orders from the DNC. I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

You should check your hat. The tin foil might be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

Tin foil, hardly. The reputation of Vox, the New York Times, the LA Times, MSNBC and Politico as left-wing advocates is pretty well established.

uh, the videos and transcripts of both speeches are publicly available. you can compare them yourself. what are you talking about??

Your red roots are showing, Lief.

I did compare them. I don't consider them to be anything other than your stock political "Americans work hard" fare that you hear in speech after speech.

I challenge you to tell me that anyone other than Melania Trump or Michelle Obama has never uttered similar words before. You can't.

[Seriously?]

Seriously?, I understand that the themes are similar, but what do you think the chances are that such similar phrasing and construction would be used in both in multiple instances?  That's like 1-in-1 million territory, and that's being generous.

This is your standard political speech when it comes to "we worked hard," blah, blah, blah.

How many possible ways can you say: My parents raised me to work hard. Instilled values in me. You are only as good as your word. Treat people nicely. We want our kids to have the same values, yada yada, yada?

I guarantee you many a politician has pretty much used the same concepts over and over and over again roughly in the exact same way. This horse can only be beaten so many ways.

[Seriously?]

This is your standard political speech when it comes to "we worked hard," blah, blah, blah.

How many possible ways can you say: My parents raised me to work hard. Instilled values in me. You are only as good as your word. Treat people nicely. We want our kids to have the same values, yada yada, yada?

I guarantee you many a politician has pretty much used the same concepts over and over and over again. The horse can only be beaten so many ways.

I agree that the themes are similar, but even simple statements can be said in numerous different forms.  For instance, there are 0 Google hits for  "has pretty much used the same concepts," and only 2 for "pretty much used the same concepts."  There are 0 hits for "we want our kids to have the same values" -- your post will be the first time that simple phrase appears on Google.  Now, what do you really think are the chances those phrases would match nearly word-for-word to Michelle Obama's speech?

I am the first person to shout down dumb, cherry-picking conspiracy theories on the left (and there are MILLIONS), but there is almost zero statistical chance that this is a coincidence.  You've got to drop your defensiveness on this and be objective.

I'll continue to beat this horse over and over again. The concepts are similar. They are stated similarly. Why?  Because these concepts are your typical political stock. I guarantee you that the construct and phrases of Michelle Obama's speech and Melania Trump's speech have been used before nearly word-for-word in other stock paragraphs espousing the same thoughts around the country.

Nothing that neither Melania Trump nor Michelle Obama have said in either speech is not something that politicians or their wives have said over and over and over again in elections throughout this country over time.

[Seriously?]

Vox isnt alone in noticing this...

NYT: Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s 2008 Address
LATimes: Melania Trump's RNC speech is strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech
MSNBC: Melania Trump speech strikingly similar to Michelle Obama 2008
Politico: Melania Trump's prime-time speech was strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's

There is more and it is growing. This is going to be a thing for sure.

Vox, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and Politico. So the left-wing press is on the attack, likely with marching orders from the DNC. I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

You should check your hat. The tin foil might be cutting off oxygen to your brain.

Tin foil, hardly. The reputation of Vox, the New York Times, the LA Times, MSNBC and Politico as left-wing advocates is pretty well established.

uh, the videos and transcripts of both speeches are publicly available. you can compare them yourself. what are you talking about??

Your red roots are showing, Lief.
I did compare them. I don't consider them to be anything other than your stock political "Americans work hard" fare that you hear in speech after speech.
I challenge you to tell me that anyone other than Melania Trump or Michelle Obama has never uttered similar words before. You can't.

Seriously,
You are totally making yourself look so foolish, with every comment you make (in this thread).
Please STOP .... You are so delusional right now, its beyond planet Earth.
95% of everyone who is commenting in this thread is saying it is OBVIOUS plagiarism.
Red avatars, blue avatars, men, women, black, white, tall, short .... Everybody !
Try and maintain some credibility on Atlas ..... otherwise, everyone will read your comments as nothing but dung from here forward.

So what. Most of Atlas skews left. And I seriously do not care what you think.

[Seriously?]

FWIW, even my non-political friends are sharing this. This one might have some staying power.

About as much staying power as this? And Obama somehow still got elected. Hugh and series, I tell you.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself?’ — just words, just speeches?” — Barack Obama, February 2008.

“’We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’Just words?’ Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ ‘I have a dream,’ just words?” — Deval Patrick, October 2006.

Again, similar concepts, slightly different arrangement. Plagiarism? Can you even plagiarize a non-copyrighted speech?

It's frigging politics folks. There are only so many ways something can be said. If you don't think that politicians and those that write for politicians recycle speeches or draw concepts from other speeches, you are kidding yourselves.

[Seriously?]

So what. Most of Atlas skews left. And I seriously do not care what you think.

Not just me. Everybody !

Do you really think that I care about what other people think?

[Seriously?]

Seriously?, you are completely ignoring my statistical argument about the word choice and phrasing similarities.  Do you not understand it, or is there some other reason you're avoiding it?

I fully understand your statistical argument. I disagree with your underlying assumption that Michelle Obama was the first one to utter those concepts or even string those concepts together in roughly the same fashion that Melania Trump did.

Those two paragraphs are stock political paragraphs. Political cliches. The equivalent in baseball as: "we played a good game, but the other team was better tonight."

It's hardly earth shattering that there are similarities here as there really are only so many ways you can say the same thing.

[Seriously?]

At this point Seriously, you have as much credibility as a preacher getting sucked off by a teen boy behind a gas station. Stop, just stop posting for tonight.

Such a witty red avatar.

[Seriously?]

Seriously?, you are completely ignoring my statistical argument about the word choice and phrasing similarities.  Do you not understand it, or is there some other reason you're avoiding it?

I fully understand your statistical argument. I disagree with your underlying assumption that Michelle Obama was the first one to utter those concepts

Yeah, that's absolutely not an underlying assumption of my argument, and I have no idea how you'd think it is, considering how many times I've explicitly said it isn't.

or even string those concepts together in roughly the same fashion that Melania Trump did.

Roughly?  Dude, the phrasing was extremely similar, in some cases identical, and I have pointed out how unlikely that is.  You haven't rebutted that argument at all; you keep doing this...

Those two paragraphs are stock political paragraphs. Political cliches. The equivalent in baseball as: "we played a good game, but the other team was better tonight."

It's hardly earth shattering that there are similarities here as there really are only so many ways you can say the same thing.

...which is, when I ask you to rebut the argument about phrasing/word choice, you default to talking about the possibility of similar themes instead.  

Also, your own examples keep shooting you in the foot.

Google results for "we played a good game, but the other team was better tonight" = 0

Honestly, do you not realize how terribly your argument is failing here?  I feel like on some level, you must.  And I'm going to keep pointing out the inadequacies of your argument until you concede them or provide a competent rebuttal.

You keep on doing that. But when my premise and your premise are not based on the same assumption (e.g. that it was political stock or boilerplate). Therefore, we're clearly not going to agree.

[Seriously?]

Vox isnt alone in noticing this...

NYT: Melania Trump’s Speech Bears Striking Similarities to Michelle Obama’s 2008 Address
LATimes: Melania Trump's RNC speech is strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's 2008 convention speech
MSNBC: Melania Trump speech strikingly similar to Michelle Obama 2008
Politico: Melania Trump's prime-time speech was strikingly similar to Michelle Obama's

There is more and it is growing. This is going to be a thing for sure. 

"Melania Trump... Speech... Strikingly similar to Michelle Obama"
All these article titles are strikingly similar to each other.

I would be willing to bet that Seriously, would think otherwise.

Strikingly similar in their deception, I do agree.

I do recall Michelle Obama saying, "For the first time in my life I am proud of my country" in that 2008 speech. Did Melania Trump say that, too?

Two paragraphs of stock political junk are similar in theme and the press wants to make a big deal about it. A complete joke.

[Seriously?]

Seriously?, you are completely ignoring my statistical argument about the word choice and phrasing similarities.  Do you not understand it, or is there some other reason you're avoiding it?

I fully understand your statistical argument. I disagree with your underlying assumption that Michelle Obama was the first one to utter those concepts

Yeah, that's absolutely not an underlying assumption of my argument, and I have no idea how you'd think it is, considering how many times I've explicitly said it isn't.

or even string those concepts together in roughly the same fashion that Melania Trump did.

Roughly?  Dude, the phrasing was extremely similar, in some cases identical, and I have pointed out how unlikely that is.  You haven't rebutted that argument at all; you keep doing this...

Those two paragraphs are stock political paragraphs. Political cliches. The equivalent in baseball as: "we played a good game, but the other team was better tonight."

It's hardly earth shattering that there are similarities here as there really are only so many ways you can say the same thing.

...which is, when I ask you to rebut the argument about phrasing/word choice, you default to talking about the possibility of similar themes instead.  

Also, your own examples keep shooting you in the foot.

Google results for "we played a good game, but the other team was better tonight" = 0

Honestly, do you not realize how terribly your argument is failing here?  I feel like on some level, you must.  And I'm going to keep pointing out the inadequacies of your argument until you concede them or provide a competent rebuttal.

You keep on doing that. But when my premise and your premise are not based on the same assumption (e.g. that it was political stock or boilerplate). Therefore, we're clearly not going to agree.

My argument is not based on the assumption that it wasn't political stock or boilerplate.  It absolutely was stock and boilerplate.  But boilerplate concepts are infrequently explained in such nearly identical phrasing.  Dude, you even proved that yourself when you quoted a "boilerplate" sentence that appears nowhere on the entire internet (and I bet you'd be challenged to find nearly-identical permutations that appear with more than a handful of results).    You're demonstrating my point for me.  

Try again.  Or, you know, be intellectually honest for ten seconds.  That's also an option.

1) Boilerplate language is by definition similar language. Neither Michelle Obama nor Melania Trump's comments are hardly new, novel or earth shattering. It's stock.

2) The reason my stock boilerplate sentence does not allegedly appear anywhere in the internet is because boilerplate sentences in sports generally do not get reduced to print. It does not make for good copy. You'll only catch those type of comments generally on video -- and only when an entire interview is aired. It's the same reason why you'll generally have an edit where the athlete "thanks God" for the victory. (Trust me, from my experience it happens all the time. God is unfortunately always and only on the side of the winners.)

3) This is much ado about nothing. Even assuming that it's plagiarism, which it's not, President Obama lifted stuff directly from Deval Patrick. Joe Biden took stuff from Neil Kinnock. This happens all the time in politics.

[Seriously?]

Wait our friend here is actually suggesting it was accidental?

If it was an occasional turn of phrase, fine, but complete sentences, even down to the idioms, then it's deliberate.

End of.

Must not be very bright. If I turned that speech in, I would get a 0 and be written up for academic dishonesty, probably even failing the class.

Yes, I give students 0 for less plagiarizing. I wonder what her turnitin score would be? This really should be the final nail in Trump's scampaign.

And what grade would you have given this guy? Should it have been the final nail in his campaign? Somehow I doubt it.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ — just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself?’ — just words, just speeches?” — Barack Obama, February 2008.

“’We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words! ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’Just words?’ Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.’ ‘I have a dream,’ just words?” — Deval Patrick, October 2006.

It's frigging politics. There are only so many ways something can be said. If you don't think that politicians and those that write for politicians recycle speeches or draw concepts from other speeches, you are kidding yourselves.

[Seriously?]

The difference with that is that Obama had previously attributed that to Deval Patrick and was not passing it off as his own thoughts. But I guess you can't understand attributing your other people's work within your own. Also, Obama did it, that makes it alright, is not a proper argument.

Not quite. In that spat, the Clinton campaign alleged the plagiarism. Obama did NOT attribute the quote to Patrick at the time, but later clarified his remarks. The Clintons sought to derail Obama from the nomination. The ploy obviously failed.

Joe Biden was even more egregious in ripping off parts of a speech from Neil Kinnock. He still remained a sitting Senator and ascended to the office of Vice President.

This stuff goes on in politics all the time. It doesn't affect the race one bit. You're specifically talking about a potential First Lady for crying out loud here. She's non-elected.

Stuff needs to be put in its proper perspective.

[Seriously?]

1) Boilerplate language is by definition similar language. Neither Michelle Obama nor Melania Trump's comments are hardly new, novel or earth shattering. It's stock.

My argument is not dependent on disagreeing with this.  Try again.

2) The reason my stock boilerplate sentence does not allegedly appear anywhere in the internet is because boilerplate sentences in sports generally do not get reduced to print. It does not make for good copy. You'll only catch those type of comments generally on video -- and only when an entire interview is aired. It's the same reason why you'll generally have an edit where the athlete "thanks God" for the victory. (Trust me, from my experience it happens all the time. God is unfortunately always and only on the side of the winners.)

You're arguing that the phrase you used would show up readily on Google, to the point where seeing it in two instances would be unremarkable, it's just that people don't transcribe sports statements often?

and, yes, I believe you that thanking God for victory is common, considering that Googling "thank God for the victory" +football gets 165,000 results.  hey look it's my exact point again

lol dude you have a solid trash fire going here and you keep layering increasingly flammable trash on top of it

3) This is much ado about nothing. Even assuming that it's plagiarism, which it's not, President Obama lifted stuff directly from Deval Patrick. Joe Biden took stuff from Neil Kinnock. This happens all the time in politics.

OK, I agree with that sentiment, but that's not an excuse to be this brazenly intellectually dishonest.  I'm not trying to prove anything about Melania Trump or any political point.  Your argument is just ridiculously irrational and I want you to concede that.  If you think that's morally or politically irrelevant, cool, totally fine -- just be intellectually honest here.

Again, if something is repeated over and over again and is in the public domain, it is not plagiarism. Both Melania Trump and Michelle Obama likely said the similar things with similar construct to what many, many other politicians have said in the past.

You are talking about a few sentences from two paragraphs in a lengthy speech, which basically state one of the few concepts that politicians on either side of the aisle agree upon. I consider what both parties said to be political truisms for any candidate seeking election.

Since it is political stock, speechwriters have a tendency to formulate that particular thought in a similar manner -- almost formalistically.

I do not think that the words that were written for Michelle Obama were hardly new. What both Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Trump said is practically political dogma.

It's likely that that portion of Mrs. Obama's speech was also appropriated from some other speech. This happens all the time in politics.

The fact that the press is making such a big deal over a matter that is trivial is an absolute and complete joke. You probably could go through just about every speech made on that floor on Monday and find one or two paragraphs of those speeches that came from somewhere else.

It's political rhetoric.

As is typical on this forum, there's a knee-jerk overreaction to both the gravity of the alleged infraction and the political impact of said infraction. This is much ado about nothing at the end of the day.

[Seriously?]

If something is repeated over and over again and is in the public domain, it is not plagiarism. Both Melania Trump and Michelle Obama likely said the similar things with similar construct to what many, many other politicians have said in the past.

People are talking about a few sentences from two paragraphs in a lengthy speech, which basically state one of the concepts that politicians on either side of the aisle agree upon. I consider what both parties said to be political truisms for any candidate seeking election.

Since it is political stock, speechwriters have a tendency to formulate that particular thought in a similar manner -- almost formalistically.

The words that were written for Michelle Obama were hardly new. They were also likely likewise appropriated from some other speech. This happens all the time in politics.

The fact that the press is making such a big deal over a matter that is trivial is an absolute and complete joke. You probably could go through just about every speech made on that floor on Monday and find one or two paragraphs of those speeches that came from somewhere else.

It's political rhetoric.

As is typical on this forum, there's a knee-jerk overreaction to both the gravity of the alleged infraction and the political impact of said infraction. This is much ado about nothing at the end of the day.

So I take it you haven't actually read the comparisons of what was said?

Of course I read the comparisons. Of course I see the similarities. But I did not watch any of the talking heads try to spin this. I guarantee you that if I had enough time to waste, I'd see similarities with those particular paragraphs in plenty of similar speeches made by many a politician over time.

There really is nothing controversial at all about those two paragraphs. It's standard (and to an extent self-serving) tripe that you hear from most candidates in most political elections. This is all just trivial at the end of the day.

[Seriously?]

If something is repeated over and over again and is in the public domain, it is not plagiarism. Both Melania Trump and Michelle Obama likely said the similar things with similar construct to what many, many other politicians have said in the past.

People are talking about a few sentences from two paragraphs in a lengthy speech, which basically state one of the concepts that politicians on either side of the aisle agree upon. I consider what both parties said to be political truisms for any candidate seeking election.

Since it is political stock, speechwriters have a tendency to formulate that particular thought in a similar manner -- almost formalistically.

The words that were written for Michelle Obama were hardly new. They were also likely likewise appropriated from some other speech. This happens all the time in politics.

The fact that the press is making such a big deal over a matter that is trivial is an absolute and complete joke. You probably could go through just about every speech made on that floor on Monday and find one or two paragraphs of those speeches that came from somewhere else.

It's political rhetoric.

As is typical on this forum, there's a knee-jerk overreaction to both the gravity of the alleged infraction and the political impact of said infraction. This is much ado about nothing at the end of the day.

Nah, this is like Rubio's awful debate performance. We saw that on Atlas and knew right away 'uh oh.' This is an 'uh oh' moment that the Trump campaign has to triage before it eclipses the whole convention narrative.

Funny, I didn't know that you actively seek election to the office of first lady. When do I get to vote for Melania?

Exactly how do you impute the morality of this alleged plagiarism onto Donald Trump exactly?

[Seriously?]

A statistical analysis by college plagiarism checker TurnItIn estimates a "less than 1 in 1 trillion" chance of coincidence.

This is exactly what I was saying, Seriously?.

This is basically a non-issue to me, but that's not an excuse to be intellectually dishonest about it.

Yawns. A few tripe political cliches, which have origins in places OTHER than Michelle Obama's speech is reused in another speech and hugh and series. What's the red avatar response when actual crimes are overlooked?

"Move on."

[Seriously?]

I will now accept my accolades

My guess would be that Trump muddles the issue similar to how Seriously? is, by going on some networks and saying "they both used some common ideas, some common phrases, they both wanted to give an inspirational and uplifting message, and I think that's something you shouldn't tear someone down for."

Wrote the entire script to the Trump campaign response within five minutes of the story breaking and nailed the entire thing, right down to the "tear down" script-flipping language.

True that both trump and Seriously responded similarly.
But they also both failed miserably and look like fools.

Maybe I am a Trump plant... Or maybe I am not. In either event, this nonsense is much ado about nothing that isn't going to change anyone's mind on who they are voting for.

[Seriously?]

A statistical analysis by college plagiarism checker TurnItIn estimates a "less than 1 in 1 trillion" chance of coincidence.

This is exactly what I was saying, Seriously?.

This is basically a non-issue to me, but that's not an excuse to be intellectually dishonest about it.

Yawns. A few tripe political cliches, which have origins in places OTHER than Michelle Obama's speech is reused in another speech and hugh and series. What's the red avatar response when actual crimes are overlooked?

"Move on."

Here's the deal, Seriously?.

You know that my argument is not based only on the reuse of themes or simple cliches.  You know that because I've explained it to you six times.  You know, on some level, that you are knowingly ignoring, or blocking out my explanations.

You know, or should know, that your argument isn't responsive to the TurnItIn article.  You know this because any half-intelligent person who reads the article understands that TurnItIn detects the likelihood of linguistic similarities using a vast database of written works, that takes into account that it's not uncommon for similarly-phrased wording to be in similar works.  If the recurrence of themes were enough to flag a paper as a one-in-one-trillion chance to not be plagiarized, obviously TurnItIn would not work as academic plagiarism detection software.  Duh.  If you don't know that, you didn't read the article.  Either that or you're so willingly deluded that you literally shut down these thought processes before they can instill doubt in the things you want to believe.

You know that I'm a reasonably intelligent person who knows you're being obviously dishonest with my argument.

You know that I am not going to stop hounding you on this until you're honest.  If you doubt me, read my post history.

You know I've explained to you, in simple terms, why what you're saying is non-responsive to my argument.  You know how totally disrespectful it is that you're wasting my time with this wall of complete and total bullsh**t.

You know that "this isn't a big deal" is not somehow an excuse for any of this.  I agree with you, actually, and don't view Melania Trump negatively for this at all.

So, if you know this, why are you doing this?  Maybe you're so emotionally dedicated to reaching a certain conclusion that you literally can't think through dissonant information.  Or maybe you think that, by conceding this issue -- one I totally agree is insignificant and doesn't reflect negatively on the people you like -- you somehow do damage to those people.  That certainly would explain how you keep responding to strawman versions of arguments, even when it's explicitly pointed out you're doing that, and keep mixing in crap about what "the opposition does."  Because, perhaps, in your mind, this is a zero-sum war to hold faith in your talking points, and the first person who blinks, instead of defending "their side," loses.

Here's the thing, Seriously?.

It doesn't matter what the opposition does.

It doesn't matter whether this reflects poorly on candidates or causes you like, or doesn't.

It doesn't matter whether this is a big deal.

It doesn't matter whether you are so insecure that you're intellectually or emotionally unprepared to deal with dissonant information.

Nothing matters except what is a reasonable, intellectually honest read of the facts.

In failing to engage that, you're being a credulous hack, completely disrespecting my time, and repeatedly embarrassing yourself by pretending that everyone, including people who agree with your politics, including probably you, doesn't know exactly what you're doing with this repetitive and hypocritical regurgitation of vacuous talking point crap.

Listen to your own advice.  Either respond to my argument (which I've presented in patient detail) in a way that actually engages the substance, or put your tail between your legs, admit you're incapable of engaging this issue like a grown-up, and MOVE ON.

And don't worry: I'm not mad.  I just enjoy this.  And I will continue to enjoy letting you embarrass yourself until you engage the substance here or admit you're unwilling to.

I am not conceding a thing. This is politics, not some meeting of academics. Politicians rip off other people's sh**t all the time. This is trivial at the end of the day and your typical left-wing media gotcha game. I'd be more than happy to supply examples of Democrats that did the same thing, if you'd like.