Melania Trump plagiarism/rickroll megathread

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's pretty bad if you look at it as a notch in the story of the Trump family's long-term attitude towards the Obamas.

Inspired by the president's race and eager to capitalize on the pent-up bigotry of the electorate, Donald Trump, in an attempt to delegitimize Barack Obama, stokes fears by demanding to see this exotic man's birth certificate.

Four years later, after disregarding and denying the humanity of the president, Donald Trump's wife appropriates the words of the black First Lady, who many in the GOP's base believe is un-American thanks in part to the colour of her skin.

[i4indyguy]

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?

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.

But you could seriously comb 10000 post game interviews, and find 90% expressing these same thoughts. You are right. They ARE STOCK POLITICAL JARGON.  but even in 10000 sports interviews you will never find this 'exact' ordering of words to express a commonly stated idea.

[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.

[Ebsy]

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 other people's work within your own. Also, Obama did it, that makes it alright, is not a proper argument.

[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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Lyin' Steve]

The Obama, Biden, etc. examples are far less egregious anyway because it's just one little turn of phrase and it's not supposed to be personal or revealing.  Obama isn't professing to be revealing his deepest feelings by borrowing a one-sentence argument from Patrick or Warren ("you didn't build that").  Melania was ostensibly showing her true self and giving a heartfelt argument for her husband's candidacy and why they would be great in the White House.  But she couldn't so she borrowed Michelle Obama's instead.

[Weiner/Holder]

Who actually "caught" her?  Did they both copy from a similar source?  Again accusations of plagiarism might be appropriate among partisans but is this really the issue to pursue?  There's plenty of investigation going on with Clinton's e-mails and it's far from over.

When the presumptive nominee's spouse lifts wholesale passages from the current first lady of the united states, yes, that's a major problem that I think most voters would frown upon. Especially since the Trump's have been tremendously ungracious to the Obama's, demanding to see his birth certificate.

40% of the country has demanded to see his birth certificate.  This is a bigger issue than Benghazi, Clinton's e-mails not being protected, and the mysterious deaths occurring throughout the Clinton years among those committed to testifying against them?  Gosh it's a good thing Trump's wife wasn't foot tapping in a stall or giving her dog a bath at a rest stop like Mitt Romney. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Who actually "caught" her?  Did they both copy from a similar source?  Again accusations of plagiarism might be appropriate among partisans but is this really the issue to pursue?  There's plenty of investigation going on with Clinton's e-mails and it's far from over.

When the presumptive nominee's spouse lifts wholesale passages from the current first lady of the united states, yes, that's a major problem that I think most voters would frown upon. Especially since the Trump's have been tremendously ungracious to the Obama's, demanding to see his birth certificate.

40% of the country has demanded to see his birth certificate.  This is a bigger issue than Benghazi, Clinton's e-mails not being protected, and the mysterious deaths occurring throughout the Clinton years among those committed to testifying against them?  Gosh it's a good thing Trump's wife wasn't foot tapping in a stall or giving her dog a bath at a rest stop like Mitt Romney. 

So... you are a crackpot.

[Sorenroy]

Seriously? and all other Crooked Melania apologists, just watch this:

https://twitter.com/mikehearn/status/755260215021432832

No way around it, straight up copying.

Seriously?, could you please watch this and explain how that is not copying Michelle's speech?


Also the best thing I can see the Clinton Campaign doing right now is handling this like adults and saying it doesn't matter because Melania isn't the one running for president. Let Trump knock himself out fighting the media, Clinton can win by staying civil and keeping to the sidelines.

[Weiner/Holder]

Seriously? and all other Crooked Melania apologists, just watch this:

https://twitter.com/mikehearn/status/755260215021432832

No way around it, straight up copying.

Seriously?, could you please watch this and explain how that is not copying Michelle's speech?


Also the best thing I can see the Clinton Campaign doing right now is handling this like adults and saying it doesn't matter because Melania isn't the one running for president. Let Trump knock himself out fighting the media, Clinton can win by staying civil and keeping to the sidelines.

I agree if she's as smart as everyone thinks she'll make it about Trump.  I'm sure she doesn't want it to be about illegal activities her and her husband have done.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Poor Xerox Melania. I'm surprised Seriously? has not called you all sexist for attacking her.

[psychprofessor]

I think Paul Ryan should open a house investigation. Who wrote the speech and when did they write it?

[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.

[Joe Republic]

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.

[Alcon]

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 political rhetoric.

Are you arguing that many politicians have said things with construction and phrasing that similar?  If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the easily Google-able reality that I've demonstrated over and over that the similarity of the construction/phrasing here is almost certainly not because of statistical chance?

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.

Wait, are you now arguing that this was intentional, but not a big deal?  Earlier you seemed to be arguing it was clearly unintentional.

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.

If you mean sharing similar ideas with past speeches, sure.  This was a totally unremarkable, boilerplate speech.  Absolutely agreed, and have agreed to that since post one.

If by "come from somewhere else," you mean virtually verbatim sentences with only a few words moved...probably not.

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.

I actually agree!  And I'm still going to keep pointing out your argument fails until you defend it adequately or concede it was unreasonable.

[psychprofessor]

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.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

obviously this is hilariously bad (both the plagiarism itself and seriously?'s buffoonish defense) but the comments about how melania is a stupid bimbo or w/e are out of line

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

obviously this is hilariously bad (both the plagiarism itself and seriously?'s buffoonish defense) but the comments about how melania is a stupid bimbo or w/e are out of line

[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.

[MK]

The partisan hackery on atlas is getting ridiculous.   This thread is showing that.

[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?

[Gustaf]

So, Seriously?, since this is SO COMMON, why don't you google a sentence from it and find it from another speech? If it's THAT common that can't be hard can it?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm sorry but concepts are easy to repeat, but to the point of exact sentence structure and specific idioms are not.

[skoods]

What else has #CrookedMelania copied in her past? Homework? Immigration test answers? Nuclear codes!?!? I think Paul Ryan and the US Congress need to bring her in and get to the bottom of this.